I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 5 August 2021

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere / Planning Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Josephine Bartley

 

Members

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Richard Hills

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Pippa Coom

IMSB Member Liane Ngamane

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

Cr John Watson

 

IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Kalinda Iswar

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

2 August 2021

 

Contact Telephone: 021 723 228

Email: kalinda.iswar@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 


 


 

Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee guides the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use, transport and infrastructure strategies and policies relating to planning, growth, housing and the appropriate provision of enabling infrastructure, as well as programmes and strategic projects associated with these activities. The committee will establish an annual work programme outlining key focus areas in line with its key responsibilities, which include:

 

·         relevant regional strategy and policy

·         transportation

·         infrastructure strategy and policy

·         Unitary Plan, including plan changes (but not any wholesale review of the Plan)

·         Resource Management Act and relevant urban planning legislation framework

·         oversight of Council’s involvement in central government strategies, plans or initiatives that impact on Auckland’s future land use and infrastructure

·         Auckland Plan implementation reporting on priorities and performance measures

·         structure plans and spatial plans

·         housing policy and projects

·         city centre and waterfront development

·         regeneration and redevelopment programmes

·         built and cultural heritage, including public art

·         urban design

·         acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and in accordance with the LTP

·         working with and receiving advice from the Heritage Advisory Panel, the Rural Advisory Panel and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board to give visibility to the issues important to the communities they represent and to help effect change.

 

Powers

 

(i)      All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a)     approval of a submission to an external body

(b)     establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)      The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)     If a policy or project relates primarily to the responsibilities of the Planning Committee, but aspects require additional decisions by the Environment and Climate Change Committee and/or the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee, then the Planning Committee has the powers to make associated decisions on behalf of those other committee(s). For the avoidance of doubt, this means that matters do not need to be taken to more than one of those committees for decisions.

(iii)     The committee does not have:

(a)     the power to establish subcommittees

(b)     powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).

 


 

Auckland Plan Values

 

The Auckland Plan 2050 outlines a future that all Aucklanders can aspire to. The values of the Auckland Plan 2050 help us to understand what is important in that future:

 

 


 

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·           Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·           Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·           Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·           In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·           The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·           However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·           All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·           Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·           Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·           All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·           Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·           Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·           Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        9

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   9

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               9

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          9

4.1     Quiet Sky Waiheke - Petition relating to the control of helicopter traffic on Waiheke Island                                                                                                     9  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                  10

5.1     Public Input: Chris Dewsy - Visual concepts for a brighter future for Tāmaki Makaurau                                                                                                             10

5.2     Public Input: Blackbridge Road Environmental Protection Society - Planning loophole relating to the dumping of managed fill                                          10

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                        11

6.1     Local Board Input: Waiheke Local Board - Dark Sky Park application       11

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                              11

8          Infrastructure Acceleration Fund                                                                               13

9          National Policy Statement on Urban Development - Intensification Plan Change - Approach for "all other locations"                                                                             25

10        National Policy Statement on Urban Development – pre-notification engagement on the required intensification plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan               47

11        Alteration of Previous Resolution from Planning Committee 5 March 2019 – Approach to marinas                                                                                                   53

12        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to Make Plan Change 53 - Temporary Activities, and the Definition of Anzac Day for Pukekohe Park Precinct, Operative                                                                                                                      61

13        Review of the Forward Work Programme - Planning Committee                          81

14        Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings – 5 August 2021                                                                                                                                       95

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2          Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

That the Planning Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 1 July 2021 as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

4.1       Quiet Sky Waiheke - Petition relating to the control of helicopter traffic on Waiheke Island

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present a petition to the Planning Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Kim Whitaker will present a petition to the Planning Committee. The petition requests that:

Auckland Council should:

·   Stop permitting more helipads

·   Impose additional conditions on existing helipads to reduce noise and increase safety for residents

The Minister of Transport should instruct the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) to:

·   Enforce approach and departure paths to stay over water as long as possible

·   Require helicopter pilots to maintain a higher altitude, make steeper approaches and departures, and other noise-reducing measures

·   Mandate that all helicopters carry and operate tracking devices that can be monitored on publicly accessible websites

3.       The petition can be found online here: https://www.change.org/p/minister-of-transport-control-helicopter-traffic-over-waiheke-island?utm_source=share_petition&utm_me dium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=e089ed80-e2ac-11eb-9da5-8b1763138a79

4.       Standing Order 7.6.1 allows for the presentation of a petition to the Governing Body and its committees.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      thank Kim Whitaker for attendance at the meeting.

b)      receive the petition in relation to the control of helicopter traffic on Waiheke Island.

 

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

 

5.1       Public Input: Chris Dewsy - Visual concepts for a brighter future for Tāmaki Makaurau

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Chris Dewsy will present visual concepts for a brighter future for Tāmaki Makaurau to the committee. Chris will show oil paintings containing ideas to enhance Auckland’s infrastructure, help improve the mental health of all Aucklanders and avert climate change at the same time.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the public input from Chris Dewsy regarding visual concepts for a brighter future for Tāmaki Makaurau and thank them for attending.

 

 

 

 

5.2       Public Input: Blackbridge Road Environmental Protection Society - Planning loophole relating to the dumping of managed fill

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Warwick Hojem of the Blackbridge Road Environmental Protection Society will address the committee about a planning loophole relating to the dumping of managed fill. The society says that the criteria for a clean or managed fill are not required to be met when combined with ancillary farm works.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the public input from the Blackbridge Road Environmental Protection Society regarding a planning loophole relating to the dumping of managed fill and thank Warwick Hojem for attending.

 


 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

6.1       Local Board Input: Waiheke Local Board - Dark Sky Park application

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Cath Handley, Chairperson of the Waiheke Local Board and Nalayini Brito from Dark Sky Waiheke will speak to the committee about their application to the International Dark Sky Association for a Dark Sky Park on the east end of Waiheke.

2.       The local board are seeking formal support from the committee for this application.  

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the Waiheke Local Board input regarding a Dark Sky Park application for the east end of Waiheke Island, and thank local board Chair Cath Handley and Nalayini Brito from Dark Sky Waiheke for their presentation.

 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

Infrastructure Acceleration Fund

File No.: CP2021/10120

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek endorsement of an approach for Auckland Council’s submission to the Crown’s Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, and associated delegations for decision making and funding agreements.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) is a subset of the Housing Acceleration Fund ($3.8 billion) announced by the Crown in June 2021.

3.       The IAF is a $1 billion contestable fund for infrastructure investment to support new housing supply in the short to medium term. It aims to increase the pace and scale of housing delivery by helping to fund the critical infrastructure needed for developments.

4.       The IAF will be a two-stage contestable process, with an expressions of interest process followed with a smaller number invited to submit full proposals (RFPs).

5.       All proposals will be assessed against a common set of investment criteria and at this stage territorial authorities, developers and iwi are eligible to apply to the IAF.

6.       To be eligible, infrastructure projects must be new or upgraded infrastructure for:

·   transport (including local roading, state highways, public transport infrastructure, footpaths and cycleways)

·   three waters (water supply, wastewater and stormwater)

·   flood management infrastructure.

7.       In addition, the projects must also be primarily for the purpose of building at least 200 new or additional houses in the short to medium term.

8.       All local authorities have been asked to provide information on projects or programmes that may be suitable for the Crown’s support. Auckland Council as a tier 1 council must apply for programmes because it is covered by an Urban Growth Partnership with the Crown.

9.       A detailed template needs to be completed for each programme of infrastructure projects. The deadline for submitting proposals to Kāinga Ora (which administers the process on behalf of the Crown) is 18 August 2021.

10.     Because of time constraints and the level of detail required for Expressions of Interest (EOI), only programmes of infrastructure projects where the project scope, costs, timing, and co-funding breakdown is already known can realistically be considered. It is therefore important to start from a basis of known information.

11.     Auckland Council itself has outcomes to be achieved and targets to be met. Staff therefore propose to use an additional (to IAF criteria) assessment for potential applications to give effect to the council’s objectives. This assessment covers the following areas:

·   spatial priority areas

·   infrastructure funding

·   supports climate positive development - emissions and resilience

·   supports housing supply and affordability.

 

12.     These two parts – focusing on areas with known information and using an additional Auckland Council assessment – form the approach proposed.

13.     Using this approach will result in a shortlist of areas with an associated programme of infrastructure projects to be considered for IAF applications. At the time of publication of the agenda report this shortlist was not yet available. It will be provided prior to or tabled at the 5 August meeting for the Planning Committee’s consideration.

14.     It should be noted at this stage that there are several significant risks associated with IAF applications.

15.     The agreement terms for IAF are likely to be similar to the Shovel Ready agreements, which requires the council to take the risk of cost escalation or failure of other parties to provide their co-funding. If there are shortfalls in funding for the infrastructure programmes funded through the IAF, there may be a need to reallocate approved funding through a variation to the Long-term Plan 2021-2031.

16.     To meet the 18 August 2021 deadline, staff recommend a delegation to approve the council’s expression of interest list prior to submitting it to Kāinga Ora.

17.     Should an EOI be successful, council will be invited to submit a request for proposal (RFP) as the next step in the process.

18.     If a request for proposal is accepted, the Crown will negotiate two agreements; a) the terms for the grant funding and b) the development agreement to ensure the delivery of housing.

19.     Due to the time constraints, it is recommended that the Chief Executive be delegated authority to, on behalf of the council, enter into such infrastructure funding agreements above $20 million.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Planning Committee:

a)      endorse the approach to developing Infrastructure Acceleration Fund programmes to be submitted to Kāinga Ora, which consists of

i)        focusing on areas and programmes where required infrastructure information is available, and

ii)       applying an additional Auckland Council assessment as set out in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b)      endorse the preliminary list of expression of interest Infrastructure Acceleration Fund programmes as tabled at the meeting, noting that further analysis will be undertaken on these programmes before the expression of interest list is finalised.

c)      delegate to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chair of the Planning Committee, Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member the final approval of the list of Auckland Council’s expression of interest programmes for the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund to Kāinga Ora by 18 August 2021.

d)      delegate to the Chief Executive authority to enter into funding agreements relating to the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund.

 


 

Horopaki

Context

About the fund

20.     The Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) is a subset of the Housing Acceleration Fund ($3.8 billion) announced by the Crown in June 2021. The fund is broken into three categories:

·   $350 million for supporting Māori housing developers (Māori Infrastructure Fund)

·   $1 billion contestable portion for territorial authorities and developers to deliver infrastructure for housing (Infrastructure Acceleration Fund)

·   the remainder of the fund to support the large scale Kāinga Ora programmes of work (Tāmaki, Mount Roskill, Northcote, Oranga, Māngere and Porirua).

21.     The Development Programme Office is the point of contact for developers who wish to make independent applications that require the council’s support.

Eligible infrastructure

22.     To be eligible for the fund, infrastructure must be new or upgraded enabling infrastructure in the form of transport, three waters (water supply, wastewater and stormwater) or flood management.

23.     The infrastructure must be wholly or primarily for the purpose of enabling the building of new or additional dwellings in the short to medium term. This is defined as a material number of those dwellings are built to completion by December 2029. The infrastructure relates to developments which are expected to enable at least 200 additional dwellings in tier 1 urban environments.

24.     Auckland Council is categorized as a tier 1 urban environment, which means that we must make an application to the IAF by way of a programme of infrastructure projects required to support the number of houses we are seeking to enable with the grant funding.

25.     Expressions of interest must be submitted by 18 August 2021. Successful applications will be invited to submit a request for proposal (RFP). An indicative schedule is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Expression of interest timeline

Milestones

Due date

Invitation for expression of interest released

30 June 2021

Submit any requests for clarification

13 August 2021

EOI submitted

18 August 2021

EOI approval period complete

14 October 2021

Successful candidates will receive invitation to submit a request for proposal (RFP)

15 October 2021

Submit fund application

21 December 2021

Fund application approved

15 March 2022

Contracting executed

31 October 2022

 


 

Evaluation criteria

26.     The evaluation criteria set out by Kāinga Ora (which administers the IAF on behalf of the Crown) is summarised as:

a)      The number of additional dwellings that the funding will enable relative to demand in that area.

b)      The proportion of lower-cost houses expected to be enabled by the Eligible Infrastructure Project(s) (primarily informed by typology of housing expected to be built).

c)      The extent to which the location where housing will be enabled has unmet demand and provides access to amenity and opportunity.

d)      The extent to which the Eligible Infrastructure Project(s) supports intensification, in particular that required to be enabled by councils under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (i.e., typology and density).

e)      The extent to which the Proposal supports housing development on land owned by Māori and to which mana whenua have been involved in developing the proposed solution.

f)       The extent to which the Proposal supports housing development that is environmentally sustainable including through reduced private vehicle use, lower risks from climate change (such as coastal inundation) and supporting water quality and biodiversity.

g)      The impact that this funding will have on the housing development advancing, or on the pace and scale at which it will advance compared to what is currently expected.

h)      Demonstration that other means to fund the Eligible Infrastructure Project(s) without displacement of investment elsewhere (i.e., rate rises, prudent borrowing, or use of the IFF framework) have been exhausted. The average whole-of-government cost per dwelling expected to be enabled by the Eligible Infrastructure Project(s).

i)        Alignment with co-funding principles for the Fund, being:

     i) Developers and landowners should be paying a similar share of the costs of the Eligible Infrastructure Project(s) as would be the case if the infrastructure was funded by traditional means through the local authority.  This is generally the reasonable ‘growth’ portion of the total infrastructure cost and in some cases this contribution can be non-financial (e.g., land or commitments to sub-market housing), but any such contribution should be similar in value to the foregone financial contribution); and

     ii) Territorial Authorities should be co-investing to the maximum extent possible.

j)        The extent to which there are other barriers to housing development that the Eligible Infrastructure Project(s) will serve (and how they will be removed if funding is approved).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Proposed strategy

27.     The fund’s evaluation criteria require in-depth information on project scope, costs, timing and co-funding breakdown. Given resource constraints and the limited time available for preparing EOIs and obtaining governance approvals, it is important that there is a clear approach to how applications to the fund will be developed. The following paragraphs set out that proposed approach.


 

28.     Firstly, only programmes of infrastructure projects where the project scope, costs, timing, and co-funding breakdown is already known can realistically be considered. It is therefore important to start from a basis of what is currently known (as opposed to considering completely new developments).

29.     The following programmes of work / sources of information provide such a basis:

·   Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP)

·   Auckland Plan 2050 Development Strategy

·   Crown/council joint work programme, agreed spatial priorities and structure planned areas

·   Māori outcomes

·   city centre programme

·   Eke Panuku work programme

·   asset management plans for stormwater, water, wastewater, community facilities and community services

·   local board capital works programmes

·   Auckland Transport’s work programme.

30.     These programmes and sources provide an Auckland Council view on key areas for urban development and enable better co-ordination of effort to project and housing delivery. Most of these programmes contain specific infrastructure challenges.

31.     However, significant work is still required to determine the cost, number and type of infrastructure projects needed to bring forward housing delivery. Once this required detail is collated it can be assessed against the Crown’s IAF criteria.

32.     Secondly, given existing Auckland Council political direction, outcomes to be achieved and targets to be met, staff have prepared and propose to use an additional assessment as shown in Attachment A. This enables a strategic assessment against the council’s objectives in addition to assessment against the Crown’s criteria. The council assessment covers the following areas:

·   spatial priority areas

·   infrastructure funding

·   supports climate positive development - emissions and resilience

·   support housing supply and affordability.

33.     There is generally more information available on the infrastructure requirements of spatial priority areas of the council and/or the Crown. Using spatial priorities as part of the assessment therefore further helps with the ability to collate information and prepare EOIs.

34.     The proposed approach therefore consists of two main elements. Firstly, to focus consideration on known programmes of work / sources of information because of the detailed level of information required for an EOI. Secondly, to apply a second assessment, with a focus on council objectives, in determining which areas should be considered for application.

35.     Using this approach will result in a shortlist of areas with an associated programme of infrastructure projects to be considered for IAF applications. At the time of publication of the agenda report this shortlist was not yet available. It will be provided prior to or tabled at the meeting for the committee’s consideration.

36.     It should be noted that the Auckland Housing Programme cannot be considered in IAF applications as funding is already available for this programme through the Housing Acceleration Fund. The Auckland Housing Programme consists of Tāmaki, Mount Roskill, Northcote, Oranga and Māngere.

Additional matters to note

37.     The Crown’s evaluation criteria require the applicant to have considered all other mechanisms available through the Local Government Act 2002 and the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act.

38.     The deadline for the IAF EOI process closes before the timeframe the council has agreed with Treasury to work through the alternative finance options and the timeframe to report back to the Finance and Performance Committee (resolution no. FIN/2021/60) to assess proposed applications for the Infrastructure Funding and Finance Act.

39.     This means that the council’s EOI applications will not have exhausted all other alternative options for funding. The Crown’s criteria mention the Infrastructure Funding and Finance Act, so this may weaken the success of the council’s EOI applications.

40.     Also, there is a risk for the council group with the timing, resourcing the level of information and work required to submit high quality applications. Consultation with local board chairs, using current known information and focusing on Auckland Council spatial priority areas should mitigate these issues. Staff will provide local boards with the list of the proposed programmes and the council and EOI assessment criteria for comment.

Assessment of expressions of interest

41.     Staff will assess spatial areas and subsequent EOI applications against the criteria outlined in paragraph 32 to determine what applications are submitted to the Crown for consideration. This will include what funding will be applied for and what is co-funded by the council, Waka Kotahi and the developers and landowners.

42.     An EOI also requires the views of and support for the EOI application from developers and landowners.

43.     Developers will be required to commit to the delivery of the number of houses applied for within the Crown timeline (a material number of those dwellings must be built by December 2029). Developers will also need to commit to paying their share of the infrastructure costs for growth that would usually be attributed to the council’s Development Contribution Policy. Therefore, it is expected that developer support will be obtained for the EOI application through a written commitment to deliver a minimum number of houses and commitment to pay their share of the equivalent development contributions and developer mitigation costs required for the programme of works.

Request for proposal (RFP)

44.     Should a EOI be successful, the council will be invited to submit a request for proposal (RFP), which is the next step in the process.

45.     If a request for proposal is accepted, the Crown will negotiate two agreements; a) the terms for the grant funding and b) the development agreement to ensure the delivery of housing.

46.     Normal processes will not allow a formal report on entering into infrastructure funding agreements to be presented and approved by the Finance and Performance Committee. Delegation to the Chief Executive to enter into such infrastructure funding agreements above $20 million, on behalf of the council, is therefore recommended.


 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

47.     Climate change impacts are affecting the region and will continue into the future. The Auckland Council assessment criteria for the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund EOI process requires the development to “support climate positive development” through the following:

·   intensifies an existing urban area, using existing infrastructure more efficiently

·   being located within an 800-metre walkable catchment of a rapid transport network stop

·   the number of jobs accessible within 45 minutes of the development during the morning peak public transport commute

·   contribution to enabling active transport modes through the design of the development

·   design of the development protects/enhances natural values and avoids/mitigates hazards

·   design of buildings meets efficiency standards.

48.     This aligns with the actions in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan, particularly action area B1, ‘ensure our approach to planning and growth aligns with low carbon, resilient outcomes’.

49.     Funding of infrastructure from the IAF will likely result in a short-term increase in emissions arising from construction and embodied carbon in materials used. These short-term effects can be mitigated to a small degree by waste reduction, recycling and local procurement.

50.     Over the medium to long term, investment in infrastructure and housing that contains growth in planned areas that are or will be well-serviced by public transport is likely to lower climate impacts as compared to other options. The climate benefits of IAF funding are that it will enable newer, more energy efficient housing to be built, resulting in less energy consumption. Development that supports public transport and active modes will help reduced dependency on private motor vehicles.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

51.     Staff have been working closely with council-controlled organisations, including Auckland Transport, Watercare and Eke Panuku Development Auckland, to develop the list of infrastructure projects to form the required programmes that will be presented for approval by elected members.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

52.     Staff circulated a memo on 23 July 2021 advising of the funding opportunity, the criteria and seeking feedback from local board chairs given the short time-frame available.

53.     Staff will provide a summary of the eligible shortlisted programmes along with the criteria and strategy to the local boards for comment.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54.     The selection of programmes to be submitted by the council for IAF funding will be shared with the Independent Māori Statutory Board for feedback.

55.     All council-led infrastructure projects require mana whenua engagement, which normally occurs after business cases have been approved and before resource consents are submitted for processing. Appropriate mana whenua engagement will be undertaken for individual programmes of work.

56.     If the IAF funding applications are successful it is expected to benefit Māori well-being through improvements to environmental quality, development and employment opportunities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

57.     The council’s assessment, if endorsed, limits expressions of interest to applications that relate to Auckland Council and/or Crown spatial priority areas where more detailed project data and cost information is available. This reduces the uncertainty of funding implications to some degree.

58.     As part of the council assessment, information on the cost certainty (low, medium or high) of projects will also be provided to assist elected members in decision making. Cost certainty is an indicator for the level of risk the council may be exposed to.

59.     Lastly, the council assessment will provide information on ‘consequential infrastructure’ that may have to be brought forward but not covered by the IAF. For example, parks or community facilities that will be needed earlier than planned, due to earlier than planned housing development. Such costs would potentially fall to the council. This information would again assist elected members in decision making.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

60.     There are several significant risks associated with IAF applications that should be noted at this stage.

61.     The agreement terms for IAF are likely to be similar to the Shovel Ready agreements, which requires the council to take the risk of cost escalation or failure of other parties to provide their co-funding.

62.     The council currently sits with financial potential liability on some Shovel Ready projects. The likelihood is medium to high that this liability could be repeated with IAF applications, due to the changes that can occur through the infrastructure design, procurement, and delivery process.

63.     If there are shortfalls in funding for the infrastructure programmes funded through the IAF, there may be a need to reallocate approved funding through a variation to the Long-term Plan 2021-2031. This would need to be approved by the Finance and Performance Committee.

64.     This potentially poses a risk to other projects and programmes of work committed to through the long-term plan, which may subsequently impact on housing delivery in other areas.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65.     Staff will assess the potential programmes against the endorsed criteria and will determine what funding will be applied for an what is co-funded by the council, Waka Kotahi and the developers and landowners.

66.     If there are shortfalls in funding for the infrastructure programmes funded through the IAF, there may be a need to reallocate approved funding through a variation to the Long-term Plan 2021-2031. This would need to be approved by the Finance and Performance Committee.

67.     If a funding bid for an infrastructure programme(s) is successful, there will be a need to ensure that developers deliver the housing and the council delivers the infrastructure in accordance with the timing set out in funding agreements. The funding agreements are expected to be entered into by mid-2022.

68.     The Development Programme Office will report back to Planning Committee on the final list of infrastructure programmes approved through delegation to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chair of the Planning Committee, Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member via a memo on 23 August 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Council Assessment - Infrastructure Acceleration Fund

23

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Fiona Wright - Head of Infrastructure Funding and Development Strategy

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

National Policy Statement on Urban Development - Intensification Plan Change - Approach for "all other locations"

File No.: CP2021/10272

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To endorse approaches in response to the intensification provisions relating to “all other locations” in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS UD).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report sets out approaches for Auckland for some of the intensification provisions of the NPS UD, specifically intensification in “all other locations”. This direction is needed to guide Council’s work programme leading towards the preparation of a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (‘AUP’) that the Government has stipulated must be notified by August 2022.

3.       Policy 3(d) requires the council to enable building heights and density commensurate with the level of accessibility to a range of activities and services or the relative demand for housing and business use in that location.

4.       This report proposes to measure accessibility through a GIS network analysis model that calculates how accessible properties are to a range of destinations or opportunities such as jobs, centres and mixed-use zones, education facilities, supermarkets, convenience stores/dairies, medical facilities, and open space.

5.       This report proposes to measure relative demand by using land values as a proxy for demand. Land values are the best indicator of where, without budget constraints, people would prefer to live. People reveal their preferences via their willingness to pay – and higher prices indicate a higher level of demand relative to other areas. That does not mean that there is low demand for housing in areas with lower land values. There is high demand for housing right across urban Auckland. People often have personal links to neighbourhoods that may lack the location or amenity that make some areas more expensive. But prices are the best indication of the areas people value most on average and in aggregate.

6.       Other methods to measure demand such as where there is a high level of building consents, house sales, housing register numbers, and homelessness, along with other matters such as amenity, and family, social and cultural ties are considered in this report. It is concluded that these methods are less reliable in comparison to land prices to determine relative demand.

7.       Following the exercise to determine accessibility and relative demand, the NPS UD requires an intensification response. This report proposes that where an area has either high accessibility or high demand, the intensification response is to provide a residential zone that enables unlimited density and a minimum of two storeys in height. In zoning terms this means the Mixed Housing Suburban, Mixed Housing Urban or Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone – not the Single House zone. Where an area has both high accessibility and high demand the intensification response is to provide a residential zone that enables unlimited density and a minimum of three storeys in height. In zoning terms this means the Mixed Housing Urban or the Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone – not the Single House or Mixed Housing Suburban zone.

8.       It is important to note that the intensification response principles outlined above based on accessibility and relative demand in “all other locations” will not be adhered to in a binary manner to ‘blanket’ these areas with a uniform zone and height limit.

9.       The intensification response will be influenced by the existing zoning (where it already enables higher heights), geographic extent of intensification in the ‘walkable catchments’ which will likely be adjacent to some of the areas of high accessibility and/or high demand. In addition, the extent of intensification in “all other locations” can be limited by relevant qualifying matters such as volcanic view shafts, special character, and natural hazards.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      endorse the following approaches in response to the intensification provisions under Policy 3(d) of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development:

Level of Accessibility

i)        Determine the level of accessibility based on how accessible properties are to a range of key destinations or opportunities including jobs, centres and mixed use zones, education facilities, supermarkets, convenience stores/dairies, medical facilities, and open space.

Relative Demand

ii)       Determine the relative demand for residential and business uses based on land value (and removing the influence of zoning on the land value).

Building Heights and Density

iii)      Determine the potential intensification on a weighted system between level of accessibility and relative demand, with a focus on enabling greatest heights and densities in areas that have both high level of accessibility and high relative demand.

iv)      In residential areas of either high accessibility or high demand, enable unlimited density and a built form of at least two storeys. In zoning terms this means the Mixed Housing Suburban, Mixed Housing Urban or Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone – not the Single House zone.  In residential areas that have both high accessibility and high demand, enable unlimited density and a built form of at least three storeys. In zoning terms this means the Mixed Housing Urban or the Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone – not the Single House or Mixed Housing Suburban zone.

b)      note that building heights and densities in “all other locations” under Policy 3(d) will be dependent on the extent of intensification in walkable catchments.

c)      note that the extent of intensification in “all other locations” will be limited by the qualifying matters agreed to by the Planning Committee in July 2021 (Resolution PLA/2021/80).

d)      note that the spatial implications of these approaches and the extent of intensification will be workshopped with the Planning Committee, local boards and mana whenua and that this may result in a refinement of the approaches in clause a).

e)      note that the approach to engagement on the intensification plan change required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development is addressed in a separate report on the Planning Committee agenda.


 

Horopaki

Context

The National Policy Statement on Urban Development

10.     The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (‘NPS UD’) came into force on 20 August 2020. It has significant implications for growth and development in Auckland. The NPS UD directs regional policy statements and district plans to enable development capacity in the form of building height and density of urban form in specified locations.

11.     The NPS UD intensification policies (Policies 3 and 4 for Auckland as a Tier 1 council, see Attachment A) set out the shape of this change. The focus of this agenda item is Policy 3(d) which is shown below.

Policy 3: In relation to tier 1 urban environments, regional policy statements and district plans enable: …

(d)              in all other locations in the tier 1 urban environment, building heights and density of urban form commensurate with the greater of:

(i)         the level of accessibility by existing or planned active or public transport to a range of commercial activities and community services; or

(ii)         relative demand for housing and business use in that location

12.     The NPS UD sets out timeframes for implementation. For intensification in Tier 1 urban environments (which includes Auckland), a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) must be publicly notified by 20 August 2022. A proposed plan change to the AUP will include zoning and text changes to enable the intensification sought by the NPS UD.

Previous reporting to the Planning Committee

13.     This agenda item follows a memorandum on the NPS UD to the Planning Committee (10 August 2020), a report on the proposed high level work programme to respond to the NPS UD (4 February 2021) in which the committee endorsed the work programme (Resolution PLA/2021/18), and a report on the proposed work programme to respond to other matters in Policy 3 (a – c) around walkable catchments (Resolution PLA/2021/80). 

14.     This agenda item addresses the policy approach to intensification in “all other locations” under Policy 3(d) of the NPS UD. A separate, but related, agenda item on the NPS UD relating to the engagement approach for this work is also on the Planning Committee agenda this month.

15.     Previous NPS UD workshops for the Planning Committee and local board chairs were held between February and June 2021 including workshopping issues around “all other locations” under Policy 3(d) (20 April 2021).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Intensification overview

16.     The objectives and policies of the NPS UD require regional policy statements and regional and district plans to enable intensification in specified areas of the urban environment.

17.     Auckland is identified as a Tier 1 urban environment. Intensification in Tier 1 urban environments is set out in Policies 3 and 4 and Subpart 6 of the NPS UD (see Attachment A).


 

18.     Policy 3 can be summarised as requiring regional policy statements and regional and district plans to enable increased building heights and density of urban form in specified areas:

a)      City centre zone – enable as much development capacity as possible; and

b)      Metropolitan centre zones – enable building heights and density to reflect demand for housing and business but in all cases building heights of at least six storeys; and

c)      Walkable catchments of the edge of city and metropolitan centre zones and existing and planned Rapid Transit Network (RTN) stops – enable building heights of at least six storeys; and

d)      In all other locations in the urban environment – enable building heights and density commensurate with the greater of accessibility or relative demand.

19.     This report sets out a proposed approach for intensification in “all other locations” in the urban environment. The identification of walkable catchments and qualifying matters, relating to Policies 3(a)-(c) and Policy 4, have been previously covered in the July 2021 Planning Committee.

20.     Policy 4 enables the modification of the building heights and density requirements of Policy 3 but ‘only to the extent necessary’ to accommodate a ‘qualifying matter’ in that area. Qualifying matters include matters such as volcanic view shafts, special character, and natural hazards, which were endorsed at the July 2021 Planning Committee (Resolution PLA/2021/80). Subpart 6 of the NPS UD provides the framework for the intensification in Tier 1 urban environments in accordance with Policy 3.

21.     The methodology of how to determine the level of accessibility and relative demand is not explicitly outlined in the NPS UD. In addition, exactly what the level of intensification that is ‘commensurate’ with accessibility and demand is not detailed in the NPS UD. This agenda item outlines the proposed approach to these matters.

Level of Accessibility and Relative Demand

How will the level of accessibility be determined?

22.     Based on a review of the literature, including New Zealand academic studies and research by Waka Kotahi, as well as examples from overseas local and central governments, it is proposed to measure ‘accessibility to a range of commercial activities and community services’ through a GIS network analysis model. This will measure to how accessible properties are to a range of key destinations or opportunities by existing or planned active and public transport.

23.     The key destinations or opportunities that have been identified for calculating accessibility are:

·   jobs

·   centres and mixed use zones

·   education facilities

·   supermarkets

·   convenience stores/dairies

·   medical facilities

·   open space.

24.     These destinations have been selected due to their importance in allowing people to access their day-to-day economic and social needs. Different destinations will have a different catchment size (i.e. people are prepared to travel further to work than they are to a dairy). Therefore, various access parameters will be incorporated across the different destinations to reflect this.


 

25.     Using the key destinations or opportunities and the access parameters as inputs, the network analysis model will produce a map to show how accessible a site or an area is to the range of key destinations ‘based on existing or planned active and public transport options’. Consistent with the NPS UD, travel by private vehicle to the key destinations or opportunities will not be modelled.

26.     Each property will receive a score based on the number and the type of key destinations they are in range of. A site or an area’s level of accessibility is then determined relative to other areas across the region. Those sites or areas with the highest scores will represent those with the highest level of accessibility in the Auckland region.

How will relative demand be determined?

27.     There are a number of different methods by which relative demand could be measured. The government’s intensification guidance document on the NPS UD states that “As a general starting point for all local authorities, land price is a good proxy to consider in understanding demand; areas with high land prices indicate the areas are more desirable to live in.”[1]

28.     Other methods to measure demand such as where building consents are issued, house sales, housing register numbers, homelessness, amenity, and family, social and cultural ties are outlined in Attachment B to this report. It is concluded that these methods are less reliable in comparison to land prices to determine where people want to live.

29.     The council’s Chief Economist Unit has assisted in measuring relative demand using land prices for residential and business land across Auckland. Land values are the best indicator of where, without budget constraints, a majority of people would prefer to live. People reveal their preferences via their willingness to pay – and higher prices indicate a higher level of demand relative to other areas.

30.     This does not mean that there is low demand for housing in areas with lower land values. People often have personal links to neighbourhoods that may lack the location or amenity that make some areas more expensive. But the prices for the best indication of what area people value most on average and in aggregate.

31.     Two things make land valuable. One is its proximity to amenities that people value (location). In general, people like to live close to jobs, good transport options, schools, shops, cafes, restaurants, parks, sea views, and other amenities. Areas with more (and higher quality) amenities have higher land values – all else equal.

32.     The second thing that makes land valuable is what you can do with the land (its development potential). Holding location constant, a piece of land with more development potential will have a higher value than land without development potential.

33.     To make a fair comparison of land values across Auckland the development potential of the land (i.e. the zoning) needs to be stripped out. Comparing a Single House zoned property in Remuera to a Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zoned property in Mt Wellington is meaningless. These two types of land will, no doubt, have different land values. However, it is not possible to determine whether this difference is due to the differences in amenity, differences in development potential, or both. This methodology is reflected in the modelling carried out by the Chief Economist Unit.

34.     Land values are not a model of where it is thought people’s demand is located. Rather, land value data reflects the value that people give to various locations regardless of the criteria they use to decide how desirable an area is (e.g. access to jobs, cultural reasons, being close to family). The various reasons people desire to locate in certain areas are largely immaterial in determining relative demand. Instead, it is the number of people who desire to locate in an area (whatever the reason) that impacts land values and is why these values are the best measurement of relative demand.

Building heights and densities commensurate with accessibility and demand

Determining the intensification response

35.     The wording of Policy 3(d) states that the degree of enabled height and density should be commensurate with “the greater of” the level of accessibility or relative demand. However, it is not possible to accurately compare whether an area in Auckland has greater accessibility or greater demand, as they are two entirely different things (‘apples and oranges’).

36.     The government’s intensification guidance document on the NPS UD is clear that “you do not need both good accessibility and higher relative demand to enable greater heights and densities.” It states that greater heights and density need to be enabled even when it is only either accessibility or demand that are high (and the other is low). The guidance then states that in areas where there is “both high demand and high accessibility then you should be seeking to enable more height and density in those areas, as these are the most suitable to accommodate intensification.

37.     In light of this, it is proposed that where an area has either high accessibility or high demand, the intensification response is to provide a residential zone that enables unlimited density and a minimum of two storeys in height. In zoning terms this means the Mixed Housing Suburban, Mixed Housing Urban or Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone – not the Single House zone. Where an area has both high accessibility and high demand the intensification response is to provide a residential zone that enables unlimited density and a minimum of three storeys in height. In zoning terms this means the Mixed Housing Urban or the Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone – not the Single House or Mixed Housing Suburban zone.

38.     A generic example of how the accessibility and demand maps could work in practice is outlined in Attachment C to this report.

Other matters to consider in the intensification response

39.     The intensification response principles outlined above that are based on accessibility and demand in “all other locations” should not be applied in a binary manner that might ‘blanket’ these areas with a uniform zone and height limit. Rather, there will be a planning process that assesses demand and accessibility along with all applicable qualifying matters (e.g. volcanic view shafts, special character, and natural hazards), and other considerations such as natural features (e.g. streams, coastlines, topography) and built form (e.g. roading patterns and block layout).  

40.     The intensification response in “all other locations” will be influenced by the geographic extent of intensification in the ‘walkable catchments’. It is likely that the walkable catchments will be adjacent to some of the areas of high accessibility and/or high demand.

41.     It is proposed that the spatial implications of these approaches and the extent of intensification will be workshopped with the Planning Committee, local boards and mana whenua. This may result in a refinement of the approaches outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

42.     Objective 8 and policy 1 of the NPS UD set out a policy framework that signals the need for decisions to reduce emissions and improve climate resilience.

43.     This framework is in line with the 'built environment' priority of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan, which has a goal of achieving "A low carbon, resilient built environment that promotes healthy, low impact lifestyles". This plan recognises that:

"To move to a low carbon and resilient region, climate change and hazard risks need to be integral to the planning system that shapes Auckland. Integrating land-use and transport planning is vital to reduce the need for private vehicle travel and to ensure housing and employment growth areas are connected to efficient, low carbon transport systems.”

44.     The Planning Committee unanimously resolved that Auckland Council fully utilises "the levers available to it to reduce transport emissions, including […] increasing the focus on intensification within brownfield areas, in particular along the rapid transit corridors" (Resolution PLA/2021/15).

45.     A previous report on well-functioning urban environments covered the development of a plan change to the AUP to include a new policy to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement on reducing green-house gas emissions and was approved at the July 2021 Planning Committee.

Emissions impact

46.     The urban form of cities directly affects the level of emissions they generate. It also affects the level of exposure its residents and businesses have to the effects of climate change. Land use and urban form are one of the most significant drivers of emissions given their long-lasting impact. Land use decisions undertaken now will lock in an urban form that will be very hard and expensive to undo in the future.

47.     The likely effect on emissions of decisions of this nature should always be considered relative to the alternative. For example, enabling increased density in areas with greatest level of accessibility will, if taken up, result in greater emissions in this location (e.g. from increased construction and the effects of demolishing or modifying lower-density areas for more intensification), but if the same level of growth happens there, rather than in a greenfield location, the emissions are likely to be lower overall over time. Some of the relative impacts of the types of intensification sought by the NPS UD are described below:

·   Density – increased density is associated with reduced energy use and emissions, both within and between cities.

·   Proximity to centres, key destinations or opportunities - households closer to centres, key destinations or opportunities have shorter trip lengths and greater mode share, and therefore generate a lower level of transport emissions. Proximity to jobs has been found to be one of the strongest predictors of household vehicle travel.

48.     In general, the approach put forward by the NPS UD (enabling intensification in areas of highest level of accessibility and relative demand, subject to qualifying matters) is likely to reduce emissions. However, these outcomes may not be universally positive from an emissions perspective. For example, intensification in areas of high demand that do not also have high accessibility is likely to result in relatively higher emissions.

49.     On balance, the implementation of the NPS UD intensification provisions, as per the recommendations of this report, will likely result in fewer emissions than many alternative scenarios, including the status quo. The NPS UD could therefore support the achievement of the council and central government’s climate ambitions. However, the extent to which it does will be determined by the extent to which they are applied. A more detailed analysis of climate impacts will be possible once the mapping work required to implement the NPS UD is undertaken.


 

Resilience to likely current and future effects of climate change

50.     Policy 1 of the NPS UD seeks that planning decisions contribute to well-functioning urban environments, which includes homes that are resilient to the likely current and future effects of climate change. The Auckland Plan outlines the impacts and risks the region is facing from climate change, including flooding, heatwaves, drought and coastal storms. The management of significant risks from natural hazards is a matter of national importance under section 6 of the Resource Management Act and is included in the definition of a qualifying matter in the NPS UD. Significant natural hazards identified in the AUP include coastal inundation, coastal erosion, flooding and land instability. These hazards, which may be exacerbated by climate change, have been confirmed as qualifying matters for Auckland, which will allow for the modification of the extent of intensification in those areas affected by these hazards. This is likely to assist with resilience to the effects of climate change by, for example, ensuring that areas that may be affected by these risks have an appropriate zoning.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

51.     Information provided by Auckland Transport has been used as input into the measurement of accessibility. Relevant council departments and CCOs will be involved in the future plan-making process as part of developing council’s response to the intensification requirements.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

52.     The extent of intensification anticipated by the NPS UD will affect all local boards, except Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke.

53.     Local board members have been briefed on the implications of the NPS UD and chairs have been invited to the series of workshops run earlier this year. Board members have voiced a keen interest in the council’s implementation of the NPS UD. A proposal for involving local boards in the development of the intensification plan change is part of a separate agenda item before the Planning Committee this month.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54.     Policy 9 of the NPS UD sets out the requirements for local authorities as follows:

Local authorities, in taking account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) in relation to urban environments, must:

a)   involve hapū and iwi in the preparation of RMA planning documents and any FDS by undertaking effective consultation that is early, meaningful and, as far as practicable, in accordance with tikanga Māori; and

b)   when preparing RMA planning documents and FDSs, take into account the values and aspirations of hapū and iwi for urban development; and

c)   provide opportunities in appropriate circumstances for Māori involvement in decision-making on resource consents, designations, heritage orders, and water conservation orders, including in relation to sites of significance to Māori and issues of cultural significance; and

d)   operate in a way that is consistent with iwi participation legislation.

55.     This policy directs council to particularly involve iwi and hapū in the NPS UD during the preparation of planning documents. The proposed plan change to implement the intensification provisions is one planning document.

56.     Auckland Council has an overarching responsibility enshrined in the Local Government Act 2002 to be cognisant of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles, and has a commitment to a Treaty-based partnership with Māori. In practice, these commitments are delivered through working together to achieve better outcomes for Māori, lifting economic, social and cultural wellbeing and recognising the link between Māori and whenua through whakapapa, strengthening our effectiveness for Māori and optimising post-treaty settlement opportunities to benefit Māori and all Aucklanders.

57.     The affordable housing demand undertaken as part of the Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment (HBA) analysis shows that those on below median household income are highly unlikely to be able to purchase a home under the current market condition. As a percentage of residents who own their own dwelling, 40 per cent of people who identify as Māori in the NZ Census (2013) are homeowners compared to 69.5 per cent that identify as European/ other. Furthermore, Mitchell, (2019) reports that Māori make up 22 per cent of the intermediate housing market, as compared to NZ Europeans 12 per cent. This work does not specifically look at housing affordability for Māori, however, Māori are over-represented in lower income groups. This means Māori are more likely to be marginalised due to lower earnings, lower rates of homeownership, feel the impact of increases in house prices, and the lack of suitable housing stock that meets their demand. These findings align with other housing affordability and social equity work completed by council officers, showing that Māori are clearly adversely affected in the current housing market.

58.     Staff are working to set the NPS UD work (including the HBA) within the broader, long-term strategic context of the Future Development Strategy and working with the Independent Māori Statutory Board Secretariat to explore the opportunities to align the NPSUD implementation with the Kāinga Strategic Action Plan. Staff have also been working with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum to establish a process to engage on the strategic aspects of the NPS UD and Future Development Strategy. This kaupapa was raised at the recent Forum planning workshop on 17 June 2021. Affordable homes for mana whenua and Māori through a Tāmaki Makaurau Housing and Papakāinga Strategy was raised as a priority at that workshop.

59.     At this stage in the process, iwi and hapū have not yet been involved involved specifically on the ‘all other locations work’. However, previous engagement with mana whenua has indicated that increasing opportunities for housing (including papakāinga) is supported, together with protecting the natural environment and areas of cultural importance.

60.     Once the policy approach to direct council’s work programme for the preparation of the plan change to implement the intensification provisions of the NPS UD has been approved, council will begin to engage with iwi and hapū and involve them in the preparation of the plan change. More details of the engagement process is provided in a separate report on the Planning Committee agenda this month.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

61.     While the preparation of a plan change to implementation of the intensification provisions of the NPS UD is a large programme of work, it is expected to be resourced through existing budgets. The budget to appoint new staff to support this programme (and where necessary engage consultants) has been approved through the council’s Long-Term Plan.

62.     Longer term, the changes to the heights and densities enabled in the AUP required by the NPS UD could have a number of financial implications for council. The further work on infrastructure capacity previously referred to in the July 2021 Planning Committee reports will investigate these issues and will be addressed in subsequent reports to the Planning Committee on the NPS UD.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

63.     The government has set out an implementation timetable for the public notification of a plan change to implement the intensification provisions of the NPS UD. The next 12 months will be focussed on preparing the plan change and undertaking pre-notification engagement.

64.     A key risk is meeting the timeframe set out in the NPS UD for intensification, which requires a plan change to be notified by 20 August 2022. There is a significant amount of survey, assessment and analysis required to meet the evidential requirements in the NPS UD and section 32 of the Act for the proposed plan change, for example surveying Special Character Areas. There is a risk that the assessment and analysis required for all locations where the NPS UD seeks to enable intensification may not be able to be completed in the required timeframe. Staff are being reallocated to undertake this task, and budget has been approved to recruit new staff to support the preparation of the plan change. The committee will be updated on this risk as work on the NPS UD progresses.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65.     Workshops will be held with local boards and mana whenua from October 2021 to discuss the NPS UD and the approaches agreed to by the Planning Committee relating to the intensification plan change. Survey, assessment and analysis will increase momentum and pace based on the direction provided by the Planning Committee. This work will result in material which will be workshopped with the Planning Committee, local boards and mana whenua in the first quarter of 2022. Further details on the next steps are outlined in the engagement report on the Planning Committee agenda.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 - Policies 3-4 and Sub-part 6

35

b

Other methods to determine relative demand (NPS UD)

39

c

Accessibility and demand diagrams - the accessibility and demand exercise in practice using a generic example

45

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ryan Bradley - Senior Policy Planner

Tian Liu - Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

Other methods to determine ‘relative’ demand (NPS UD)

1.       In addition to land values, a range of other variables have been considered for determining relative demand for residential and business use across Auckland’s urban area. Each of these other options has been regarded as a less reliable measure of demand.

Building consents

2.       The number new dwellings consented in an area could be used as a measure of relative demand. The theory being, there must be demand for houses in specific locations if they are being built there. A map showing the areas of higher and lower building consent between 2015-2020 is shown below.

Map 1: Building consents (2015-2020)

3.       The map indicates that over the last five years the areas of Auckland that stand out as having particularly high building consents issued are Kumeu-Huapai, Hobsonville, Whenuapai, Millwater, Flat Bush, Takanini, and Belmont (Pukekohe). But this does not necessarily indicate where people want to live, but rather where the supply of new dwellings is highest - it is supply led rather than demand led. This indicator is already skewed by the very factors we want to strip out of our analysis: lots of homes get consented where the land is already zoned to enable more housing.

House sales

4.       House sales could be used as an indicator of demand with the rationale being that in locations where there are a large number of houses being sold, there must be demand for houses in these specific locations. A map showing the areas of higher and lower house sales between 2015-2020 is shown below.

 

 

Map 2: Residential sales (2015-2020)

5.       Using the number of house sales to measure relative demand falls into the same trap as the building consents data. While there are houses being sold all across Auckland, the highest volumes of sales are in areas where there is a new large supply (which is linked to building consents). The map of house sales over the past five years largely mirrors the previous map on building consents with largely the same areas standing out.

Housing waiting lists / Homelessness

6.       The Ministry of Social Development’s Housing Register provides the number of applicants assessed as eligible for social housing who are ready to be matched to a suitable property. This could be a potential measure of relative demand as it shows where people are demanding housing. The map below shows the housing register by local board with the highest numbers in South Auckland and West Auckland.

Map 3: Housing register numbers (March 2021)

7.       In addition, the number of homeless people in an area could be an indicator of demand for housing in that area. The map below illustrates severe housing deprivation across local board areas with the highest areas of deprivation being focused in South Auckland. Severe housing deprivation is synonymous with homelessness. It refers to people living in severely inadequate housing due to a lack of access to minimally adequate housing. The severely housing deprived population includes those without shelter, those in temporary accommodation, and those sharing accommodation.

Map 4: Homelessness / Severely housing deprived (2018)

8.       However, neither the housing register nor homelessness are considered to be accurate indicators of relative demand across Auckland. The locations of those in these situations are usually the result of a number of various factors and may not reflect exactly where they want to live in Auckland. The question of ‘where do people want to live’ is generally a secondary matter to those in these situations with the first priority being to find any safe and habitable shelter.

Amenity

9.       The government’s intensification guidance document on the NPS UD suggests that, in addition to land values, areas of high demand could be determined by locating areas that are:

·    close to open space and recreation opportunities

·    within, or close to centres

·    have good transport opportunities

·    close to key services including schools, hospitals and supermarkets

·    close to a range of business activities

·    have good views, outlook and amenity, including areas with water views or green space outlooks

10.     These potential indicators of demand have not been pursued for two reasons. Firstly, much of this would largely replicate the accessibility mapping already being done under Policy 3(d)(i) of the NPS UD. Secondly, to place a value on things such as views, outlook and amenity would be a very subjective exercise. It seems unnecessary to attempt to place values on this when the market already has done this through land values. The value of land has built into it how much people will pay for particular views, amenity or accessibility.

Family, social, and cultural ties

11.     Many people may choose to live in particular areas primarily based on family, social, or cultural influences. However, modelling across Auckland’s population the individual choices of people when there is as much variability and subjectivity as there is with family, social and cultural ties is not possible.

12.     Furthermore, the value that is placed on family, social and cultural ties will be reflected in land values. If more people desire to live in a certain area (for any reason) this will be reflected in the land value.

Conclusion on other options to measure relative demand

13.     In view of the alternatives, land value is still considered the best way to measure relative demand across Auckland.

 


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

Accessibility and demand diagrams - the accessibility and demand exercise in practice using a generic example

1.       Below is a generic example of how the accessibility and demand exercise under Policy 3(d) of the NPS UD could work in practice.

2.       Diagram 1 shows an urban area with a City Centre on the left, two Metropolitan Centres around the middle, and a number of Rapid Transport Network (‘RTN’) stations. Around each of these a ‘walkable catchment’ has been identified. The work required under Policy 3(d) for “all other locations” covers the land outside these centres (covered under Policy 3(a) and (b)) and outside the identified walkable catchments (covered under Policy 3(c)).

Diagram 1: Generic example of an urban area with centres and walkable catchments identified

 

3.       Diagram 2 below identifies in purple the areas with high accessibility. This will have measured ‘accessibility to a range of commercial activities and community services’ through a GIS network analysis model. The purple areas are only identified outside of specified centres and the walkable catchments (that are already covered by under Policy 3(a)-(c) of the NPS UD).

Diagram 2: Generic example of areas of high accessibility (identified in yellow)

 

4.       Diagram 3 below identifies in brown the areas with high demand. This will have been determined by calculating land values (without the influence of zoning). Again, the brown areas are only identified outside of the specified centres and walkable catchments.

Diagram 3: Generic example of areas of high demand (identified in red)

 

5.       Diagram 4 below overlays the areas of high accessibility (purple) and high demand (brown) to find the areas where both overlap. For the areas that remain purple or brown the intensification response is to provide a residential zone that enables unlimited density and a minimum of 2 storeys in height. In the areas that overlap and have both high accessibility and high demand the intensification response is to provide a residential zone that enables unlimited density and a minimum of 3 storeys in height.

Diagram 4: Generic example of areas of high accessibility (yellow) and high demand (red)

 

 


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

National Policy Statement on Urban Development – pre-notification engagement on the required intensification plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan

File No.: CP2021/10631

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To agree an approach to involving local boards and mana whenua, and engaging with Aucklanders and key stakeholders on the intensification plan change required under the National Policy Statement on Urban on Development 2020 (NPS UD).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Planning Committee received a memorandum on the NPS UD on 10 August 2020 and a report on the proposed work programme on 4 February 2021. A series of workshops have subsequently provided advice to the Planning Committee on the NPS UD, and the committee considered reports on aspects of the NPS UD at its meeting on 1 July 2021. In response to one of the reports, it was noted that a plan for involving local boards and mana whenua, and engaging with Aucklanders and key stakeholders on the NPS UD intensification plan change would be presented to the Planning Committee in August 2021.

3.       The NPS UD requires that a proposed intensification plan change must be notified by 20 August 2022. This report sets out an approach to engagement prior to that date.

4.       Consultation and engagement requirements are not specified in the NPS UD other than for the preparation of a Future Development Strategy, and with iwi and hapū in relation to the preparation of Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) planning documents, which includes any plan changes to implement the NPS UD.

5.       Given the significance of the matters that need to be addressed in the required intensification plan change and their interest to Aucklanders, and also reflecting previous engagement on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan in 2013, it is considered appropriate to engage with Aucklanders and key stakeholders before formal public notification in August 2022.

6.       The proposed approach to engagement is for the council to involve local boards and mana whenua in developing the council’s preliminary response to the NPS UD intensification policies between October 2021 and early 2022. This would be followed by engagement with Aucklanders and key stakeholders in March or April 2022.

7.       The proposed approach has two key benefits. Firstly, it will enable Aucklanders and key stakeholders to understand the NPS UD and the council’s preliminary response, and secondly, feedback received through this process will help inform the intensification plan change required under the NPS UD prior to public notification in August 2022.


 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the following engagement approach for the intensification plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020:

i)          workshops from October 2021 to early 2022 with the Planning Committee, local boards and mana whenua on the council’s preliminary response

ii)         engagement in March or April 2022 with Aucklanders and key stakeholders on the council’s preliminary response

iii)         workshops in May and June 2022 with the Planning Committee, local boards and mana whenua to consider feedback from Aucklanders and key stakeholders on the matters over which the council has discretion and to progress the proposed intensification plan change

iv)        public notification of the proposed intensification plan change by 20 August 2022.

b)      note that a more detailed plan for involving local boards and mana whenua and engaging with Aucklanders and key stakeholders will be prepared.

 

Horopaki

Context

8.       The Planning Committee received an introductory memorandum on the NPS UD on 10 August 2020 and a report on the proposed work programme on 4 February 2021. A series of Planning Committee workshops have subsequently provided advice to the Planning Committee on the issues in the NPS UD. Local board chairs or their nominees have been invited to attend all workshops on the NPS UD.

9.       The Planning Committee considered reports relating to aspects of the NPS UD at its meeting on 1 July 2021. In response to one of the reports, it was noted that a plan for involving local boards and mana whenua and engaging with Aucklanders on the intensification plan change required under the NPS UD would be presented to the committee in August 2021. The NPS UD requires that a proposed intensification plan change must be notified by 20 August 2022.

10.     Consultation and engagement requirements are not specified in the NPS UD other than for the preparation of a Future Development Strategy, and with iwi and hapū in relation to the preparation of Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) planning documents, which includes the any plan changes to implement the NPS UD.

11.     However, the council is required to consult certain government departments, iwi authorities and anyone else it considers appropriate when preparing plan changes to the AUP (as prescribed in Schedule 1 of the RMA). The council therefore has a good degree of discretion to adopt its own process for engagement on the intensification plan change required under the NPS UD. 


 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     Two key elements are considered to be an important aspect of engagement on the intensification plan change:

·   involving local boards and mana whenua prior to public notification in August 2022

·   engaging with Aucklanders and key stakeholders prior to public notification in August 2022.

13.     In terms of engaging with Aucklanders and key stakeholders, the council will need to be as clear as possible about the aspects of the intensification plan change that are strictly required by the NPS UD, and the aspects over which the council has some discretion. This means that even though there may be consultation prior to formal public notification, the council will not be able to change its approach in response to feedback received on aspects that are mandatory (such as the general enablement of at least six storeys inside walkable catchments).

14.     The recommended approach for engagement is as follows:

·   workshops from October to early 2022 with the Planning Committee, local boards and mana whenua on the council’s preliminary response

·   engagement in March or April 2022 with Aucklanders and key stakeholders on the council’s preliminary response

·   workshops in May and June 2022 with the Planning Committee, local boards and mana whenua to consider feedback from Aucklanders and key stakeholders on the matters over which the council has discretion and to progress the proposed intensification plan change

·   public notification of the proposed intensification plan change by 20 August 2022.

15.     The timeline for the proposed engagement approach is heavily reliant on three factors:

·   Firstly, the time required to complete a comprehensive street-based survey of properties within the Special Character Areas overlay in the AUP. This is a huge undertaking. At the time of completing this report it is anticipated that the survey will be completed for areas within the “walkable catchments” of the city centre, metropolitan centres and stops on the Rapid Transit Network by the end of 2021 and for “all other locations” early in 2022. It is possible the latter work could take longer, which may require a review of the timeframes or approach to engagement. The Planning Committee will be informed of progress with this work towards the end of 2021, along with any resulting changes to the overall approach and/or timeline if this is required.

·   Secondly, adding a step of engaging with Aucklanders and key stakeholders presents a further challenge to meeting the tight timeframe required by the NPS UD to notify the intensification plan change to the AUP. Engagement with Aucklanders and key stakeholders prior to public notification is not a requirement of the NPS UD. However, consulting with Aucklanders and key stakeholders before formal notification is considered to be best practice, given the matters involved.

·   Thirdly, it will be important to identify as clearly as possible in the engagement material, the aspects of the council’s preliminary response that are discretionary (and may therefore change as a result of feedback) and the aspects that are non-discretionary as they are directed by the government through the NPS UD. This will influence the way the engagement and consultation is undertaken.


 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

16.     The intensification plan change required under the NPS UD has the potential to reduce vehicle emissions (and therefore reduce climate impacts) by enabling more people to live closer to public transport, employment, goods and services. This matter will be discussed in detail in subsequent reports to the Planning Committee.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17.     By enabling an intensity of development in many parts of Auckland beyond that which is currently enabled in the AUP, the intensification plan change could have a significant impact on the council group. This will be addressed in detail in subsequent reports to the Planning Committee. Relevant council departments and the Council Controlled Organisations are involved in all aspects of the NPS UD.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

18.     The extent of intensification anticipated by the NPS UD will affect most local boards and many communities in urban Auckland. Local board members have been briefed on the implications of the NPS UD and chairs have been invited to the series of committee workshops during 2021. Board members have voiced a keen interest in the council’s implementation of the NPS UD.

19.     Staff attended the Local Board Chairs Forum meeting on 12 July 2021 to brief chairs on the background to the NPS UD, the resolutions of the Planning Committee on 1 July 2021, and a possible approach to engagement with local boards, mana whenua and key stakeholders. The proposed approach for involving local boards in the development of the proposed plan change to implement the NPS UD is outlined previously in this report. Engaging with Aucklanders and key stakeholders prior to formal public notification presents an enhanced opportunity for local impacts to be considered before the proposed plan change is notified in August 2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.     Auckland Council has obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its Significance and Engagement Policy to take special consideration when engaging with Māori to enable Māori participation in council decision making to promote Māori well-being.

21.     Policy 9 of the NPS UD sets out the requirements for local authorities as follows:

Local authorities, in taking account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) in relation to urban environments, must:

a)      involve hapū and iwi in the preparation of RMA planning documents and any FDSs by undertaking effective consultation that is early, meaningful and, as far as practicable, in accordance with tikanga Māori; and

b)      when preparing RMA planning documents and FDSs, take into account the values and aspirations of hapū and iwi for urban development; and

c)      provide opportunities in appropriate circumstances for Māori involvement in decision-making on resource consents, designations, heritage orders, and water conservation orders, including in relation to sites of significance to Māori and issues of cultural significance; and

d)      operate in a way that is consistent with iwi participation legislation.

22.     This policy directs the council to particularly involve iwi and hapū in the NPS UD during the preparation of planning documents. The proposed plan change to implement the intensification provisions is one such planning document.

23.     At this stage in the process, iwi and hapū have not yet been involved. However, previous engagement with mana whenua has indicated that increasing opportunities for housing (including papakāinga) is supported, together with protecting the natural environment and areas of cultural importance.

24.     Staff will work with mana whenua to agree an engagement plan with them and will consider how to best engage with mataawaka.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25.     The preparation of the intensification plan change required under the NPS UD (including engaging with Aucklanders and key stakeholders) is a large programme of work. Budget to appoint new staff to support this programme (and where necessary engage consultants) has been approved through the council’s Long-term Plan. At this stage it is anticipated that the recommended approach to engagement can be managed within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26.     As noted above, the preparation of the intensification plan change required under the NPS UD is a large programme of work. A key risk is meeting the timeframe set out in the NPS UD, which requires the plan change to be notified by 20 August 2022. There is a significant amount of survey, assessment and analysis required to meet the evidential requirements of the NPS UD and section 32 of the RMA for the proposed plan change. There is a risk that the survey, assessment and analysis required for all locations where the NPS UD seeks to enable intensification may not be able to be completed in the required timeframe. Staff are being reallocated to undertake this task, and budget has been approved to recruit new staff to support the preparation of the plan change. The committee will be updated on this risk as work on the NPS UD progresses.  

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27.     Once agreed to by the committee, the engagement approach will be translated into a detailed communication and engagement plan. The recommended approach would see initial workshops taking place with local boards and mana whenua from October 2021.  

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ross Moffatt - Principal Planner

Eryn Shields - Team Leader  Regional, North West and Islands

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

Alteration of Previous Resolution from Planning Committee 5 March 2019 – Approach to marinas

File No.: CP2021/11326

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To revoke Planning Committee resolution PLA/2019/20 related to developing a region wide marina strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In March 2019 the Planning Committee resolved to develop a region wide, demand driven marina strategy.

3.       There are 14 marinas in the Auckland region (a 15th has been granted consent at Kennedy Point, Waiheke Island). Six of these marinas are owned (land) and managed by Eke Panuku. The other marinas are privately operated and have associated land parcels privately owned.

4.       Together these marinas offer over over 6000 berths. This does not include other forms of moorings in the region such as swing moorings. Based on certain assumptions there were around 54,000 boats in Auckland in 2011 (yachts and launches (11,000), trailer power boats (38,000), trailer sailing boats (5,000)) - 3.7% of Aucklanders were estimated to have owned a boat in 2011.

5.       Assuming the boat ownership rate for Aucklanders in 2020 was the same as that estimated for 2011 (i.e., 3.7%), it is estimated that there were around 63,500 boats in Auckland in 2020, with around 0.3% of Aucklanders having a boat berthed at a marina.

6.       The committee’s 2019 resolution was in response to concerns raised by some stakeholders, in particular the Hobsonville-West Harbour Residents and Ratepayers Association and the Auckland Marina Users Association.

7.       These concerns covered a wide range of matters such as the possible sale of council owned land around the marinas that is owned and managed by Eke Panuku, proposed residential development at Westpark Marina, granting of occupational permits, marina related Unitary Plan provisions, longer term maintenance management at Pine Harbour, sale of Bayswater Marina, not using council’s powers to manage marinas as community assets etc.

8.       The strategy was not resourced at the time of the committee resolution. Due to constrained resources and competing priorities, the strategy was subsequently not resourced in the 2019/20 Annual Plan, 2020/21 Annual Plan nor the Long-term Plan 2021-31.

9.       Where council could manage to allocate additional resources to the Auckland Strategy and Research Department through the Long-term Plan, these were allocated to council’s priorities of climate change and meeting its legal obligations to implement National Policy Statements.

10.     The issues raised by some stakeholders have not been tested or verified, but there may be legitimacy to issues which, in the longer term, may well affect the interest of berth holders and other marina users. These issues are however not of a similar immediate and urgent nature as the numerous other matters that the council must address and resource and which elected members have made decisions to allocate resources to.


 

11.     At the time staff were of the view that a marina strategy was not required or could not have any significant impact as only six marinas are owned by council.

12.     Staff therefore recommend that the committee’s resolution PLA/2019/20 be rescinded and that, should any specific and more immediate marina related issues emerge, they be addressed as is appropriate. This makes for specific and targeted rather than all-encompassing action.

13.     It also means committee does not have unfunded resolutions setting expectations for action.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      revoke the resolution (PLA/2019/20) carried at the 5 March 2019 meeting:

a)      endorse the development of a region wide marina strategy prioritising the Council owned marinas including Gulf Harbour, Hobsonville (Westpark), Half Moon Bay and Westhaven.

b)      commence the strategy process with stakeholder and mana whenua and mataawaka engagement that identifies relevant information, needs and how urgent issues can be prioritised.

b)      address any particular and more immediate marina related issues, as is appropriate, should any arise.

c)      note that, should there be a proposal to sell or alienate any council-owned land at any marina, Auckland Council would need to approve such a sale or alienation prior to it occurring.

d)      note, as agreed by the committee on 5 March 2019, Auckland Council is a creature of statute, which adheres to the intent of empowering acts even where those acts are inconsistent with any precinct plans at individual marinas.

 

Horopaki

Context

14.     In March 2019 the Planning Committee resolved (PLA/2019/20) the following:

That the Planning Committee:

a)             endorse the development of a region wide marina strategy prioritising the Council owned marinas including Gulf Harbour, Hobsonville (Westpark), Half Moon Bay and Westhaven.

b)             commence the strategy process with stakeholder and mana whenua and mataawaka engagement that identifies relevant information, needs and how urgent issues can be prioritised.

c)             agree that Auckland Council is a creature of statute, which adheres to the intent of empowering acts even where those acts are inconsistent with any precinct plans at individual marinas.

15.     At the time concerns regarding marinas stemmed from primarily two sources.

16.     Firstly, from the Hobsonville-West Harbour Residents and Ratepayers Association, about development proposals by the leaseholder HML at Hobsonville (Westpark) Marina. Concerns centered around a potential sale of land, proposed residential development and the potential height of buildings (viewed as liberal development provisions). Concerns were also raised about the Auckland Unitary Plan provisions being inconsistent with the Waitemata City Council (West Harbour) Empowering Act 1979.  This was around 2016/17.

17.     Secondly, from AMUA, the Auckland Marina Users Association. This group formed in June 2018 representing marina users – mainly berth holders – and established to “vigorously oppose Auckland Council’s agenda of selling community owned waterfront land at Auckland’s marinas” (AMUA press release 29 June 2018). The group subsequently proposed that the council should develop a region-wide, demand driven marina strategy.

18.     AMUA has raised many issues related to marinas covering matters such as:

·   the granting of occupational permits at Bayswater, Hobsonville (Westpark) and Pine Harbour (with different durations than existing seabed licences)

·   lack of longer-term maintenance management at Pine Harbour

·   sale of Bayswater Marina in 2014 (by the Crown)

·   perceived conflicts/inconsistencies between the Auckland Unitary Plan and Empowering Acts

·   inadequate provisions in the Unitary Plan for the management of marinas

·   that council is not using its available powers to manage these community assets

·   an undermining of the ability to manage marinas as fully integrated land and marina basin complexes etc.

19.     Apart from these two organisations there were also concerns raised about the land known as Hammerhead at Gulf Harbour Marina. This land was generally perceived to be ‘public’ when in fact there were leaseholder rights over the land that potentially allowed the leaseholder to legitimately undertake certain activities. There were also concerns raised about the long-term security of the berth and carparking for the Gulf Harbour ferry.

Marina numbers

20.     There are 14 marinas in the Auckland Region:

Bayswater Marina

Mahurangi Marinas

Bucklands Beach Yacht Club Marina

Pine Harbour Marina

Milford Marina

Hobsonville (Westpark) Marina

Gulf Harbour Marina

Orakei Marina

Outboard Boating Club

Silo Marina

Viaduct Harbour Marina

Half Moon Bay Marina

Sandspit Marina

Westhaven Marina

 

 

21.     Six of these marinas are owned (land) and managed (e.g., administering lease agreements) by Eke Panuku on behalf of council. These are Gulf Harbour Marina, Hobsonville (Westpark) Marina, Half Moon Bay Marina, Silo Marina, Viaduct Harbour Marina and Westhaven Marina.

22.     The other marinas are privately owned and operated and have associated land parcels held in private ownership. There are also council-owned land parcels of varying size associated with the private marinas in the form of public open space or transport related activities such as ferries and parking.

23.     Combined, these marinas provide over 6000 berths (this includes approximately 200 pile moorings at Hobsonville). This number does not include other forms of moorings, such as swing moorings, that are not associated with the marinas listed above.

24.     A fifteenth marina has been consented at Waiheke Island (Kennedy Point Marina) which will provide around 180 additional berths.

25.     Unless it is a commercial boat, New Zealand does not have a registration system for boats. Household access to pleasure craft was measured in the 1981 Census, the final year in which this was asked. By treating ‘one or more craft’ per household responses as ‘one craft’ per household to be conservative, there were around 37,000 ‘motor boats’ and ‘sail boats’ combined in 1981 in Auckland.

26.     However, the report “Beca Auckland Recreational Boating Study, 12 April 2012” gives a 2011 estimate of 54,000 boats in the following categories: yachts and launches (11,000), trailer power boats (38,000), trailer sailing boats (5,000). Marinas provide not only berths but also boat ramps from which trailer boats can be launched.

27.     In the context of the 1981 Census, the 54,000 figure from Beca for 2011 does not seem unreasonable - the population ratio between 1981 and 2011 is approximately 1 to 1.67; the ratio between the boat estimates is 37,100: 54,000, which equals 1 to 1.45.

28.     Assuming every boat in Auckland is owned by only one Aucklander and is not i) shared by multiple owners, ii) owned by people living outside Auckland, then it is estimated that around 3.7% of Aucklanders owned a boat in 2011.

29.     Assuming the boat ownership rate for Aucklanders in 2020 was the same as that estimated for 2011 (i.e., 3.7%), it is estimated that there were around 63,500 boats in Auckland in 2020, with around 0.3% of Aucklanders having a boat berthed at a marina.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

30.     At the time of the committee resolution in March 2019, staff explained that development of a region wide marina strategy was not on any work programme and could not be resourced.

31.     Because of already committed work, development of a marina strategy would have had to be outsourced in the main. To give effect to the resolution a cost estimate was therefore prepared in 2019, of around $1 million to complete the marina strategy. This included sourcing data to undertake a demand analysis, undertaking consultation and in-sourcing a project manager and consultation assistance amongst others.

32.     Due to constrained resources and competing priorities, the marina strategy was not funded in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

33.     In 2020 further work was done to look at various options for how the committee resolution PLA/2019/20 could be progressed. Options included reducing the scope of work. All options required amending the committee resolution to varying degrees. Costed options still amounted to around $550k to $620k.

34.     The 2020/21 Annual Plan felt the impact of Covid-19 and resulted in the Emergency Budget. Due to constrained resources and competing priorities, the marina strategy was not funded in the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

35.     The 2021–31 Long-term Plan – the Recovery Budget – did not fund the marina strategy due to constrained resources and competing priorities. With regard to the Auckland Strategy and Research Department, where council did manage to allocate additional resources, these were allocated to council’s priorities of climate change and meeting its legal obligations to implement National Policy Statements.

Changes since 2019

36.     There have been no specific or new emerging issues with the 14 existing marinas since 2019.

37.     The concerns/issues raised (by the two groups mentioned earlier in particular) have not been tested or verified. There may be legitimacy to these issues which, in the longer term, may well affect the interest of berth holders and possibly other users. These issues are however not of a similar immediate and urgent nature compared to numerous other matters that the council must address and resource.  A significant issue raised in 2019 has since been resolved and is dealt with below.

Gulf Harbour Marina

38.     Under the provisions of the 2020 Emergency Budget, Auckland Council approved new commercial arrangements such as the prepayment of commercial ground leases, including marina ground leases.

39.     In 2020, Eke Panuku reached agreement with the marina owner/operator (the leaseholder) whereby the leaseholder prepaid the ground rentals for the 6 leases comprising the marina land through to expiry in 2088. At the same time, Auckland Council purchased the leaseholder’s interests in the Hammerhead land to safeguard the existing carparking and a range of public amenities, as well as to secure 2 long term marina berth licenses to future-proof Auckland Transport’s ferry service and facilitate the future expansion of the existing ferry terminal at Gulf Harbour.

40.     The Hammerhead and ferry issues at Gulf Harbour Marina have therefore been resolved.

Hobsonville (Westpark) Marina

41.     The 10 ground leases comprising Hobsonville (Westpark) Marina expire in 2084. However, a number of the leases contain provisions which entitle the leaseholder, under certain conditions, to further terms of 21 years in perpetuity.

42.     Since the initial residential scheme promulgated by the marina owner/operator (the leaseholder) in 2018, the leaseholder has not announced any further redevelopment proposals for the leasehold land. However, the fact remains that, providing compliance with the terms and conditions of the existing ground leases and the original empowering legislation, together with any necessary consents being obtained under the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan, future redevelopment at Hobsonville (Westpark) Marina could occur should the leaseholder so wish.

43.     However, it must be noted that, should there be a proposal to sell any council-owned land, either at or adjacent to the Hobsonville (Westpark) Marina, Auckland Council would need to approve such a sale prior to it occurring, just as it would for any council-owned land at any other marina.

44.     There are differing legal opinions with regard to the perceived conflict/inconsistencies between the original Waitemata City Council (West Harbour) Empowering Act 1979 and the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan. This situation is not causing any operational issues. While this remains the case today, there are currently no plans to undertake a plan change in relation to the Auckland Unitary Plan provisions as they relate to Hobsonville (Westpark) Marina, or marinas in general. The current planning focus is to implement National Policy Statements and engage in various substantial private plan changes. This is an extensive workload spread over a number of years. Given the timeframes specified in the various National Policy Statements, this work must be given priority.

Options

45.     The following options have been identified.

Option

Description

Benefits

Disadvantages

1.  Retain the committee resolution and execute as and when resources allow

The resolution remains on the Planning Committee books but no action is taken until such time that resources could be made available.

· A resolution to undertake work is in place should resources be allocated

· Work for the Annual Plan will have to be done every year to update cost estimates for Finance and Performance to consider

· A resolution remains on the books without being funded or executed, setting expectations for action

2.   Address particular/specific issues if and when they arise (in lieu of a marina strategy)

A marina strategy is not developed but issues are addressed should any arise – could relate to one or more marinas.

· Action can be specific and targeted rather than all-encompassing

· Stakeholders who consider development of a marina strategy as crucial will view this as not fulfilling a commitment made

· A resolution remains on the books without being funded or executed, setting expectations for action

3.  Rescind the committee resolution

The resolution is rescinded, and a marina strategy is not developed.

·  Planning Committee does not have unfunded or non-actioned resolutions

· Stakeholders who consider development of a marina strategy as crucial will view this as not fulfilling a commitment made

· Should a marina strategy be dermined as a priority then a new resolution will be required

 

46.     Given the following, staff recommend Option 3 as:

·   there has not been any specific or new marina related issue in relation to the existing marinas since the resolution in 2019

·   Hammerhead and ferry berth issues at Gulf Harbour have been resolved

·   if there is any proposal to sell or alienate council owned land at marinas, council will consider such sale or alienation prior to it occurring

·   any plan change to amend the marina precinct provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan are unlikely to be a priority at least until NPS’s have been implemented (currently the focus is on the NPS on Urban Development and the NPS for Freshwater Management)

·   indications are that, when there is sufficient demand, the market will aim to supply marina services (Kennedy Point).

47.     In addition to option 3, staff also recommend that option 2 be followed, that is, should any particular marina related issue arise, it be dealt with as is appropriate via advice to the appropriate committee.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

48.     Marinas, as with other coastal infrastructure (landfills, wastewater, parks transport etc.), will be impacted by sea level rise and storm surges. As exposure to risk increases, land owners, marina operators and those making use of their services will have to adapt. In some cases adaptation may not be a viable option and retreat will have to be considered.

49.     Unless 100 percent powered by wind and/or solar, some pleasure craft are very high (transport) emitters. There is also embodied carbon in the construction of pleasure craft, as there is in the construction of marinas.

50.     A marina strategy could address the impacts of sea level rise by developing adaptive pathways for marinas (this was not costed in the scope of work).

51.     There are no direct climate impacts resulting from a decision to rescind the committee resolution, but it does remove the option of the strategy being the vehicle for developing such pathways.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52.     Eke Panuku’s view was sought as to issues it faces with regard to the six marinas it owns and administers, and whether such issues required a marina strategy to be addressed. No such issues were identified.

53.     Auckland Transport’s view was sought as to issues it faces with regard to ferry services and associated parking, and whether such issues required a marina strategy to be addressed. No such issues were identified.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

54.     No input from local boards was sought specific to this report.

55.     Marinas are often an integral part of and used by a local community, such as for ferry services. They also attract users from outside the area, using boat ramps for example.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

56.     No input from Māori and/or mana whenua was sought specific to this report.

57.     The foreshore is important to Māori, both historically and today. In the past, travel by sea and other waterways was an important and necessary means of transport, especially in Auckland. The foreshore also provided sustenance for Auckland’s hapū and iwi as many whakatāuki attest to. Te Ao Māori incorporates the interrelatedness of people, land and sea and therefore the responsibility of people to the natural environment.

58.     Auckland’s three harbours are subject to Treaty Settlement negotiations, which once completed are likely to have implications for Auckland Council and for how these harbours are administered. This may include the occupation of coastal marine space. It is conceivable that mana whenua have had, and will continue to have, strong views about coastal occupation for private use.

59.     Decisions on marinas need to be understood in this context. The nature of Auckland’s geography means that matters related to marinas will be important to all mana whenua authorities.

60.     The revocation of this resolution will not impact Māori in any greater way than the general public.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

61.     The 2021–31 Long-term Plan did not fund the marina strategy due to constrained resources and competing priorities. If the resolution PLA/2019/20 is rescinded, this means that the committee does not have unfunded resolutions.

62.     Should the resolution not be rescinded the ongoing need to prioritise resourcing for the marina strategy remains.


 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

63.     The following risk is identified.

Risk

Mitigation

There are differing views on whether there are, or the extent of, significant issues related to marinas, what these are and who should be responsible for addressing them. Some see a marina strategy as the solution.

A marina strategy is however unlikely to resolve all these issues, leaving some dissatisfied with the end result.

The risk is therefore that, regardless of whether a strategy can resolve all issues, some will view rescinding the committee resolution as reneging on a commitment made.

No mitigation has been identified.

A strategy can be developed if resources are secured, but it is unlikely to resolve all of the issues that may be raised.

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

64.     The are no further steps required should the resolution be rescinded, other than addressing specific marina related issues as and when they arise, as is recommended.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Request to Make Plan Change 53 - Temporary Activities, and the Definition of Anzac Day for Pukekohe Park Precinct, Operative

File No.: CP2021/10280

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To make operative Plan Change 53 – Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       On 6 August 2019 the Planning Committee resolved to publicly notify Plan Change 53 – Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct (Resolution PLA/2020/68). The purpose of the plan change was to:

a.       ensure that the AUP’s management of temporary activities (in particular – events and filming) strikes an appropriate balance between enabling temporary activities to occur whilst avoiding or mitigating adverse environmental effects.

b.       ensure that the tools used to manage temporary activities result in an efficient process and avoid any unnecessary duplication between (for example) the Event Permit requirements, Film Auckland Protocols and the other methods in the AUP.

c.       address a gap in the coastal temporary activity provisions

3.       Plan Change 53 (PC53) affects three sections of the AUP:

a.       E40 Temporary activities

b.       E25 Noise and vibration

c.       I434 Pukekohe Park Precinct (align the definition of Anzac Day with the definition under the Anzac Day Act 1966)

4.       The decision of the independent commissioners appointed to hear submissions on PC53 was publicly notified on 14 May 2021. No appeals have been received against the decision.

5.       The relevant parts of the AUP can now be amended and made operative in accordance with the hearing commissioner’s decision.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the proposed amendments to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under Plan Change 53 – Temporary Activities and Pukekohe Park Precinct, as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b)      request staff to undertake the steps in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make Plan Change 53 operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       Plan Change 53 sought to:

a.       ensure the AUP’s management of temporary activities (in particular – events and filming) strikes an appropriate balance between enabling temporary activities to occur whilst avoiding or mitigating adverse environmental effects.

b.       ensure the methods used to manage temporary activities result in an efficient process and avoid any unnecessary duplication between (for example) the Event Permit requirements, Film Auckland Protocols and the methods in the AUP.

c.            address a gap in the coastal temporary activity provisions.

7.       The specific changes were to:

a.       exclude activities from parts of the duration of temporary activities specified in Table E40.4.1 by not including the time required to establish and remove all structures and activities associated with the activity and reinstate the site to its original.

b.       apply the construction noise standards in E25.6.28 to those excluded activities.

c.       amend rows A5 and A6 in the Temporary Activities “Activity Table” to refer to “temporary activities in public places or on private land” (i.e., recognising that public places and private land are mutually exclusive).

d.       require a traffic management plan (as a permitted activity standard) for an event in a rural or Future Urban zone where more than 500 vehicle movements per day are generated on adjacent roads.

e.       increase the duration of those temporary activities that are defined as noise events (i.e., they exceed the noise standards for the zone that they are occurring in) from six to eight hours.

f.       add a noise standard for temporary coastal activities that generate noise but are not defined as “noise events” in the noise chapter of the Auckland – wide provisions.

g.       align Anzac Day in the Pukekohe Park precinct to the definition under the Anzac Day Act 1966.

8.       The Planning Committee approved PC 53 for public notification on 3 September 2020 (Resolution PLA/2020/68). Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) sets out the process for a change to a policy statement or plan. Following Schedule 1 of the RMA, Plan Change 53 was:

·   publicly notified on 24 September 2020

·   open for public submissions until 22 October 2020

·   open for further submissions until 3 December 2020

·   heard by independent commissioners on 16 March 2021

·   the independent commissioner’s decision was publicly notified on 14 May 2021.

9.       The appeal period for the PC53 decision closed on 28 June 2021. No appeals have been received. Therefore, the relevant parts of the AUP can now be amended and made operative as set out in the decision dated 28 April 2021 (refer to Attachment A).


 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10.     Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

11.     Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’.  Decisions were made on all submissions and no appeals were received. On this basis the plan changes can now be approved.

12.     Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the date that PC53 is made operative.  Plans and Places staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Planning Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13.     As a procedural step, impacts on climate change are not relevant to the recommendation to approve PC53. That having been said, creating more flexibility for temporary activities has the potential to assist event operators in adapting to the weather-related aspects of climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14.     As a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of PC53.

15.     The changes to the Unitary Plan’s temporary activity standards and Pukekohe Park Precinct provisions will provide greater flexibility for Auckland Unlimited sponsored/supported events and all other temporary activities/events.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

16.     There was feedback from 20 of the 21 local boards on PC53.

17.     Local Board feedback fell into the following broad categories:

Feedback

Local Board

1.  Support

Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Otara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Upper Harbour

2.  Neutral

Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Rodney, Waiheke, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

3.  Oppose increases in the duration of temporary activities from 6 to 8 hours

Albert-Eden, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waitematā

4.  No feedback

Aotea/Great Barrier

 

18.     There was no scope within the submissions received to make the changes requested by those Local Boards that were opposed to increasing the duration of temporary activities that are defined as noise events from six to eight hours. Local boards can however set limits on the duration of temporary activities on public land within their local board areas under the Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 (currently being reviewed).


 

19.     Amending the definition of Anzac Day in the Pukekohe Park precinct to bring it in line with the definition in the Anzac Day Act 1966 would have enabled any motor racing to occur on Anzac Day. This was mitigated in the commissioners’ decision by limiting the racing that can be held on Anzac Day to international events (such as the Australian Supercars).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.     As a procedural step, there are no impacts on Māori associated with the approval of PC53.

21.     All iwi authorities were consulted with prior to the plan change being publicly notified.  Responses were received from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Ngai Tai ki Tamaki.

22.     Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei advised that they had no concerns with PC53 and did not need to engage further. Ngai Tai ki Tamaki advised that a potential concern was the Marine and Coastal Area Act – Takutai Moana claims and legal processes.  PC53 does not however have an effect on the activities able to be undertaken in the coastal marine area.

23.     No submissions were received from iwi authorities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24.     There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving plan changes and amending the AUP is a statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Plans and Places Department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25.     There are no risks associated with making PC53 operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26.     The final step in making PC53 operative is to publicly notify the date on which it will become operative, and to the update the AUP.

27.     Plans and Places staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make PC53 operative, including the public notice and seals. The update of the AUP is expected to occur soon after having the plan sealed on Friday 10 September.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Plan Change 53 Decision

65

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

Review of the Forward Work Programme - Planning Committee

File No.: CP2021/10803

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To review and note progress on the 2021 Planning Committee forward work programme appended as Attachment A.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The forward work programme for the Planning Committee was adopted at its meeting held on 13 August 2020.  It was agreed that the forward work programme would be reported monthly for information and reviewed on a six-monthly basis.

3.       Due to the uncertainty of the meeting schedule during 2020, and the adoption of an Emergency Budget, the committee forward work programmes have not had a full review since originally being approved.

4.       The Governing Body has now adopted the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) and committee forward work programmes should reflect those decisions.

5.       All committees need to review their forward work programme, by the end of September, following the adoption to the budget each year. A further review needs to be carried out by the end of March each year.

6.       Following approval, all committee forward work programmes will be reported to the Governing Body in October and April each year, for oversight as per the Terms of Reference.

7.       To expedite the above process, it has been agreed to report the committee forward work programmes to the Governing Body at its meeting on 26 August 2021.

8.       The current forward work programme for the Planning Committee is appended as Attachment A.

9.       Specific amendments have been made as follows:

·   any new additions will be highlighted

·   any deletions will be shown in strikethrough.

10.     Further updates from Auckland Transport will be tabled at the Planning Committee meeting on 5 August 2021.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive and review the progress on the 2021 Planning Committee forward work programme - Attachment A of the agenda report.

b)      approve the reviewed forward work programme.

c)      agree to review the forward work programme prior to the end of March 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

August 2021 Planning Committee forward work programme

83

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kalinda Iswar - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

 

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere / Planning Committee

Forward Work Programme 2021

This committee guides the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use, transport and infrastructure strategies and policies relating to planning, growth, housing and the appropriate provision of enabling infrastructure, as well as programmes and strategic projects associated with these activities. The full terms of reference can be found here.

 

Area of work and Lead Department

Reason for work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Expected timeframes

Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2021

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

30 Nov

Unitary Plan Monitoring including Climate response (led by Plans and Places)

Auckland Unitary Plan Monitoring Report

Plans and Places

Statutory requirement under section 35 of the Resource Management Act to provide a comprehensive monitoring report five years from date the Auckland Unitary Plan became ‘operative in part’ (i.e. by November 2021). This work will consist of interim monitoring reports ahead of November 2021. Examples of monitoring topics include urban growth and form, quality built environment, historic heritage, indigenous biodiversity, Maori economic, social and cultural development, natural hazards (including flooding) and climate change. This work may result in plan changes being recommended ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026.

Decisions required: Interim reports seeking committee feedback and decisions on possible plan changes ahead of the review of the Auckland Unitary Plan in 2026. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enabling Rainwater Tanks Plan Change

Plans and Places

Mandating the installation of rainwater tanks in certain situations

Decisions required: committee to consider options and recommendations

Progress to date: Delegated authority to approve notification of the plan change PLA/2020/47

Report due October 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Auckland Plan 2050

Auckland Plan Annual Scorecard and Annual Update

APSR

To report annual progress against the 33 measures of the Auckland Plan 2050

Decision required: only on possible changes to measures (if none required, could be a memo)

Progress to date:

The next annual monitoring report is due in July 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Management Act framework reform

Resource Management system reform – Natural and Built Environment Bill (exposure draft)

Chief Planning Office

The Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) to provide for land use and environmental regulation (this would be the primary replacement for the current RMA)

The exposure draft will provide input into the Select Committee Inquiry which will inform the final bill

Decision required: approval of council approach and submission

Progress to date: authority delegated to approve council submission on bill exposure draft PLA/2021/75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Management system reform – Natural and Built Environment Bill

Chief Planning Office

The Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) to provide for land use and environmental regulation (this would be the primary replacement for the current RMA)

Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.

Decision required: approval of council approach and submission

Consultation period will be second half of 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Management system reform – Strategic Planning Bill

Chief Planning Office

The Strategic Planning Act (SPA) to integrate with other legislation relevant to development (such as the Local Government Act and Land Transport Management Act) and require long-term regional spatial strategies.

Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.

Decision required: approval of council approach and submission

Consultation period will be second half of 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Management system reform – Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Bill

Chief Planning Office

The Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Act (CAA) to enable and address issues associated with managed retreat and funding and financing adaptation.

Resource management is a core aspect of Auckland Council’s role. The size and scope of this reform means that these reforms will shape council’s strategic context for at least the next decade.

Decision required: approval of council approach and submission

Consultation period likely mid-2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Policy Statements

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 – implementation approach

Chief Planning Office

The NPS-FM was adopted by central government in September 2020. Auckland Council’s implementation approach needs to be reworked to take into account the greater expectations required of councils and other parties to give effect to Te Mana o Te Wai, preceding plan changes required before the end of 2024

Decision required: to receive an updated council implementation approach for the NPS-FM and associated instruments

Progress to date: high-level implementation plan approved, working group formed to provide political oversight PLA/2021/12

Memo update due in August 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Lands

Chief Planning Office

The finalisation of the proposed NPS-HPL is due to be considered by central government in 2021. If adopted, this will have implications for land use in the Auckland region, and how highly productive lands are recognised and managed.

Decision required: to consider council’s approach to implementation of any finalised NPS-HPL in the Auckland region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity

Chief Planning Office

The finalisation of the proposed NPS-IB is due to be considered by central government in 2021. If adopted, this will have implications for how biodiversity outcomes are managed in the Auckland region, particularly through planning frameworks.

Decision required: to consider council’s approach to implementation of any finalised NPS-IB in the Auckland region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Urban Growth and Housing

National Policy Statement on Urban Development

Chief Planning Office

The NPS UD was gazetted by the government on 20 July 2020 and comes into force on 20 August 2020 with ongoing timeframes for implementation. The purpose of the NPS UD is to require councils to plan well for growth and ensure a well-functioning urban environment for all people, communities and future generations

Decision required: consider the significant policy and implementation issues that are presented by the NPS UD, approve the detailed work programme for Phase 2

Progress to date:

Work programme endorsed PLA/2021/8 and workshops held Feb – Jul 2021.

Housing Development Capacity Assessment findings received PLA/2021/77

Approved development of a plan change to Regional Policy Statement of the Auckland Unitary Plan PLA/2021/78

Endorsed approaches to the intensification provisions relating to walkable catchments, special character areas and qualifying matters PLA/2021/80

Reports due in August 2021 relating to urban design matters, carparking minimums, intensification provisions in all other locations, and engagement. Reports due in September for carparking minimums and urban design matters. These decisions will inform the forward work programme for remainder of 2021 and into 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Government Policy Statement – Housing and Urban Development

Chief Planning Office

The GPS will communicate the Government’s long-term vision for the housing and urban growth system. It will provide specific direction to Kainga Ora – Homes and Communities and broad expectations on other government agencies

Decision required: approval of council’s submission and consideration regarding implementation

Consultation period will be mid-2021

Progress to date:

Authority delegated to approve council submission on the discussion document PLA/2021/70

Consideration of the implementation of the Government Policy Statement following publication - anticipated in October 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Affordable Housing

Chief Planning Office

To progress the resolution (PLA /2019/17) on Auckland Council’s role and position on affordable housing in phases:

Progress report and approach to advice

Decision required: receive Affordable Housing progress update and insights

Progress to date:

Forward work programme approved and political working party formed PLA/2020/65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advocacy Plan

Decision required: receive update on Affordable Housing Advocacy Plan and initial engagement

Progress to date:

Update report due September 2021 advising work undertaken by the political working party on the affordable housing advocacy plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research findings

Decision required: consider research and implications

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consider options

Progress to date:

Housing for older people PLA/2020/92,

Inclusionary Zoning PLA/2020/93, PLA/2020/94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kainga Ora

Chief Planning Office

Ongoing Kainga Ora implementation issues and relationship management

Decision required: nature of any decisions to be confirmed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crown Auckland Council Joint Work Programme

Chief Planning Office

Quarterly update on the Crown and Auckland Council Joint Work Programme on Urban Growth and Housing.

Decision required: Generally none.  Receive updates by memorandum on JWP and any proposed changes to the workstreams. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transport Strategy Programme (led by Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO in conjunction with others)

Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP)

Now that ATAP has been adopted for the next decade staff will commence work on a recommended indicative package for 2031-2051. As capacity allows staff from council and ATAP partner agencies will commence work on recommended indicative packages for decades two and three.

Decision required: consider indicative funding packages for outyears 2031-2051 in the third or fourth quarters of 2021 consider indicative funding packages for decades two and three, potentially in the fourth quarter of 2021 or, more likely, 2022

Progress to date:

Considered at Extraordinary Planning Committee 11 March 2021 PLA/2021/15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congestion Question

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is conducting an inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.

Decision required: The Select Committee Inquiry will inform next steps on congestion pricing in Auckland. The timeframe for final recommendations from the Inquiry is yet to be confirmed.

Progress to date:

Authority delegated to provide direction and approve submission May 2021 PLA/2021/36 – PLA/2021/37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City Centre to Mangere Auckland Light Rail

Subject to Cabinet consideration. Next steps known post-election 2020.

Cabinet will be making decisions on Auckland Light Rail late 2021.  Auckland Council is represented on the Sponsor’s Group and on the Establishment Unit Board. 

Decision required: to be confirmed

Progress to date:

Guidance for Light Rail Establishment Unit on network integration provided June 2021 PLA/2021/53

Workshop with Establishment Unit held 30 June 2021

Confidential report due September 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increasing mobility options & networks (walking, cycling & micro-mobility, & connecting networks)

Status update to be confirmed

Decision required: to be confirmed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Transport Operating Mechanism review

Following direction from the Mayor and Chair, Transport Strategy will be working with MoT and AT as part of the PTOM review process.  Transport Strategy is waiting on public release of the MoT’s PTOM review, anticipated in the near future. Following release, Transport Strategy will prepare a memorandum summarising key points from the review and relating these to advice provided previously (e.g. bus driver contract conditions and vehicle procurement).

Decision required: to be confirmed

Progress to date:

Update memo related to Ministry of Transport’s discussion paper circulated 22 July 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hamilton to Auckland High Speed Rail business case

Status update to be confirmed.

Decision required: to be confirmed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Auckland Transport – update to be provided by Auckland Transport

Northwest Interim Bus Improvements

AT advancing bus improvements and responding to consultation. Strong councillor interest

Receive updates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Access for Everyone business case

AT progressing business case in line with Council’s CCMP.

Receive updates and provide feedback on draft

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northern Busway enhancements

AT progressing business case as early part of Additional Waitemata Harbour Connections. High profile project

Receive updates and provide feedback on draft

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regional parking strategy review

 

AT has started work on updating some parts of its 2015 parking strategy.  The indicative completion date is late-2020.

Decision required: to be confirmed

Progress to date: Confidential workshop held June 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure

Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy work programme

APSR

Engagement with Ministers and engagement with the work underway ahead of report back to Cabinet (previously scheduled for May 2020). Next steps known post-election 2020.

Note: Central government has deferred any further policy analysis until 2021. Reconsideration of this item on the Planning Committee forward work programme will take place following any further communication from the Ministry of Transport

Decision required: to be confirmed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National 30-year Infrastructure Strategy

APSR

This will replace the current national 30-year plan. It will consider how infrastructure might support environmental, social, cultural, and economic wellbeing

Decision required: to be confirmed

Consultation period will be May/June 2021

Progress to date:

Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Strategy 3 June 2021 PLA/2021/54

The draft strategy will be presented to the Minister for Infrastructure in September 2021. The final strategy will be tabled in Parliament by early 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Auckland Unitary Plan oversight

Making Plan Changes Operative

Plans and Places

Statutory Resource Management Act requirement to make council and private plan changes operative once the decision on the plan change is made and any appeals are resolved.

Decision required: Make plan changes operative.

 

As and when required

 

 

Private Plan Changes

Plans and Places

Private plan change requests not dealt with under staff delegation. These will be brought to committee as and when required.

Decision required: Accept/adopt/reject/deal with the request as a resource consent application.

 

As and when required

Plan Change – Residential

Plans and Places

Monitoring of the Auckland Unitary Plan has indicated that some improvements can be made to the provisions for residential development.

Decision required: Provide direction on the scope and timing of a potential plan change.

Progress to date: Endorsed the preparation of a plan change for Integrated Residential Development provisions PLA/2020/115

Update memo received in July.

Workshop planned for October 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Māori Heritage Sites of Significance

Plans and Places

Second tranche of plan changes to identify Maori Heritage sites and places of significance

Decision required: To approve the plan change 

Progress to date: Frist tranche approved and made operative PLA/2021/6

Report on second tranche due September 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads & Pedestrian Accessways to
Open Space

Plans and Places

Scoping report identifying opportunities to offer unutilised areas of road reserve and unformed legal roads back to Māori former landowners

Decision required: Consider recommended approach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Auckland Housing Programme – area plans and potential plan changes

Plans and Places

Kainga Ora has prepared a spatial development strategy for the Mt Roskill and Mangere areas. These may need area plans for consultation with the community and local boards. 

Some plan changes may come out of this work for parts of these areas.

Decision required: Endorsement of draft area plans for public consultation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panuku Priority Location Programme

Wynyard Point Masterplan & Plan Change

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Refreshed Wynyard Point masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.

Direction required: Support for the Wynyard Point Final Masterplan incorporating public consultation feedback.

October/November 2021 workshop

Decision required: Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Final Masterplan and proposed plan change for public consultation. Report due November 2021

Endorsement for the Wynyard Point Plan Change for public notification. Report planned June/July 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thriving Town Centres - Town Centre Guidelines for Eke Panuku locations

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Guidance document to support future urban regeneration delivery and engagement with stakeholders and partners. As an operational document the guidelines will be approved by the Eke Panuku Board.

Direction required: Confirmation of alignment with Council strategies and direction, and support for the guidelines.

Sept/October workshop

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Onehunga Wharf Masterplan & Plan Change

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Onehunga Wharf masterplan leading to council led plan change to support future regeneration delivery.

Aug 2021 committee decision required: Endorsement for proceeding with preparation of a plan change.

Direction required: Support for the Onehunga Wharf Masterplan for public consultation and feedback. February/March 2022 workshop

Endorsement for the Onehunga Wharf Masterplan for public consultation February/March 2022

Decision required: Endorsement for the Onehunga Plan Change for public notification June/ July 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlock Uptown

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Foundation Outcomes and Precinct Development Plan to guide the regeneration delivery of Council and Crown land surrounding CRL Karangahape and Maungawhau stations.

Note: This workstream will get picked up by the Governing Body – a workshop is planned for October 2021.

Jul 2021 workshop direction required: Support for the proposed Foundation Outcomes.

Dec 2021 workshop direction required: Support for the proposed Precinct Development Plan prior seeking formal approval.

Feb 2022 committee decision required: Endorsement for the proposed Precinct Development Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlock Haumaru

Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Programme delivery completed and forward programme update.

Note: This workstream has been removed as no decisions are required from the Planning Committee

2021 Workshop & Committee: Date and decision required to be confirmed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transit-oriented development (TOD) Programme

Panuku Development Auckland & Auckland Transport

Panuku and Auckland Transport joint work programme to investigate transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunities around established transport hub and park & ride sites.

Note: This workstream has been removed as no decisions are required from the Planning Committee

2021 Workshop & Committee: Date and decision required to be confirmed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlock Northcote

Panuku Development Auckland

Update on market process to select a preferred development partner and proposed regeneration delivery pathway.

Note: This workstream has been removed as no decisions are required from the Planning Committee

2021 Workshop & Committee: Date and decision required to be confirmed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Completed

Lead Department

Area of work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Decision

 

CPO

Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities second Bill

Approval process for council’s submission

Political working group established to develop and approve submission by Planning Committee 5 December 2019

PLA/2019/92

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO

Submission on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill

Review and approve council’s submission

Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020

PLA/2020/9

 

CPO

Submission on the Urban Development Bill

Review and approve council’s submission

Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 4 February 2020

PLA/2020/10

 

CPO

Submission on the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity

Review and approve council’s submission

Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020

PLA/2020/15

 

Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Auckland Plan 2050 Implementation and Monitoring

Receive an update on the Auckland Plan 2050 and the first Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress report

Updates received by Planning Committee 5 March 2020

PLA/2020/16

 

Auckland Design Office

City Centre Masterplan Refresh adoption

Consider and adopt refreshed City Centre Masterplan

City Centre Masterplan Refresh adopted by Planning Committee 5 March 2020

PLA/2020/17, PLA/2020/18, PLA/2020/19

 

Financial Strategy and Planning

Submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill

Review and approve council’s submission

Council’s submission approved by Planning Committee 5 March 2020

PLA/2020/20

 

DPO

Shovel-ready projects for Central Government

Agreement on list for submission to central government

Process agreed at Emergency Committee 9 April 2020

EME/2020/13

 

CPO

Submission on the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package

Review and approve council’s submission

Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 16 April 2020

EME/2020/23

 

CPO

Silverdale West Dairy Flat Structure Plan

Consider and approve the final structure plan

Final structure plan approved by Governing Body 30 April 2020

GB/2020/38

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO

NZTA Innovating Streets Fund

Approval of council approach and submission

Endorsed first round of funding and approved process for developing the second round at Emergency Committee 7 May 2020

EME/2020/55

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO

NZTA Innovating Streets Fund

Approval of second round funding bids to NZTA

Approved Council and AT proposed list of projects for further development and refining, and authority delegated to approve the final submission, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020

PLA/2020/30

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research, CPO

Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021-2031, and draft National Rail Plan

Approve council submission on GPS and Draft national rail plan

Council’s submission approved by Emergency Committee 7 May 2020

EME/2020/56

 

Plans and Places

National Environmental Standards on Air Quality – council submission

Approve council submission

Council’s draft submission endorsed, and authority delegated to approve final submission, Planning Committee 4 June 2020

PLA/2020/31

 

CPO

Resource Management Act Framework

Fast-track consenting legislative change

Approve council’s submission

Authority delegated to approve council’s submission on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, at Planning Committee 4 June 2020

PLA/2020/32

 

Plans and Places

Strategic Land Use Frameworks for Dairy Flat and Kumeu Huapai Future Urban Areas

Approval to prepare strategic land use frameworks for Wainui Silverdale Dairy Flat and Kumeu-Huapai.

Approved preparation of spatial land use frameworks, and established a Political Working Party to approve the draft spatial land use frameworks, at Planning Committee 2 July 2020

PLA/2020/37

 

Plans and Places

Plan Change - Whenuapai

Approve next steps.

Next steps approved in confidential section of Planning Committee 2 July 2020

PLA/2020/44

 

Plans and Places

Plans Change – Events on Public Space

Enable events on public space that have obtained an event permit to be undertaken more easily.

Endorsement of proposed plan change for notification.

Notification of plan change approved at Planning Committee 3 September 2020

PLA/2020/68

 

Plans and Places

Review of Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule

Consider the timing of a full review of Schedule 10 – Notable Trees in the context of resourcing constraints and priorities

Options for reviewing the schedule in future considered at 5 November Planning Committee.

PLA/2020/95, PLA/2020/96, PLA/2020/97

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Additional Harbour Crossing

Consideration of finalised business case.  The business case is a joint piece of work between Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Transport (AT) and Auckland Council. 

Business case considered, findings noted and support given to continue council’s involvement in the project, at 5 November Planning Committee

PLA/2020/100

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Congestion Question

Consideration of findings in the Congestion Question project final report.

Noted that phase two of the project is completed, received the report findings, considered scope of phase three and requested approvals and updates to return to the committee

PLA/2020/116

 

Panuku Development Auckland, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council

Downtown Carpark development outcomes

Establish agreement on the Auckland Council group development outcome requirements for the Downtown Carpark to enable site sale through a contestable market process.

Development outcomes confirmed in confidential section of the December 2020 Planning Committee meeting PLA/2020/120 and strategic transport outcomes agreed in June 2021 PLA/2021/52

 

Auckland Transport

Auckland Cycling Programme Business Case Review

Agree committee members to participate in an Auckland Transport-led political reference group.

Members delegated to the political reference group

PLA/2021/7

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Auckland Transport Alignment Project

Agree funding package.

Approved the recommended ATAP 2021-31 indicative package

PLA/2021/15

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Auckland Plan Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome Measure confirmation

Confirm new Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome measures

New measures confirmed

PLA/2021/26

 

Auckland Transport

Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031

Agreed funding package for consideration of RLTP committee and AT board

Endorsed Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2931 for the Auckland Transport board to adopt.  

 

APSR

Infrastructure Strategy

Provide strategic insights and direction 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy (for subsequent referral to Finance Committee)

Strategy adopted by Finance and Performance Committee in June 2021 (as part of Long-term Plan)

 

APSR

Auckland Plan 2050 implementation and monitoring

 

To note progress against the measures in the Auckland Plan 2050

 

2021 monitoring report received

PLA/2021/69

 

Chief Planning Office

Unit Titles Act

To approve council’s submission

Authority delegated to approve submission

PLA/2021/27

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP)

To approve the recommended Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021-31 indicative package.

Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021-31 indicative package approved

PLA/2021/15

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Regional Fuel Tax

To consider components and changes to current status

Regional Fuel Tax Variation Proposal adopted by the Governing Body in May 2021

GB/2021/55

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Congestion Question

To approve council’s submission to the select committee on the Inquiry into congestion pricing

Authority delegated to approve submission

PLA/2021/36 – PLA/2021/37

 

Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

National 30-year Infrastructure Strategy

To approve council’s submission

Authority delegated to approve council’s submission

PLA/2021/54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plans and Places

Auckland Unitary Plan and Auckland District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) – Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua

To approve the plan change and make it operative

Plan Change 22 and Plan Modification 12 (Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua) made operative

PLA/2021/6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Planning Committee

05 August 2021

 

Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings – 5 August 2021

File No.: CP2021/10797

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that have been held or been distributed to committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo/briefing or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following workshops have taken place:

Date

Workshops

30/6/2021

CONFIDENTIAL: City Centre to Māngere Light Rail Establishment Unit

28/7/2021

CONFIDENTIAL: Decision making for the National Policy Statement Urban Development - Plan change relating to the removal of car parking minimums and intensification approach for ‘all other locations’

4.       The following briefings have taken place:

Date

Briefings

27/7/2021

CONFIDENTIAL: Waka Kotahi Update

5.       The following memoranda and information items have been sent:

Date

Memoranda, Correspondence, Information Item

July 2021

Auckland Monthly Housing Update – July 2021

2/7/2021

Auckland Council’s submission on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission Infrastructure Strategy Consultation Document “He Tūāpapa ki te Ora, Infrastructure for a Better Future”

19/7/2021

Auckland Transport response to Ministry of Transport discussion paper Public Transport Operation Model review

22/7/2021

Memo: Infrastructure acceleration fund application strategy

23/7/2021

Memo: Auckland Unitary Plan - Update on the preparation of an Integrated Residential Developments plan change

29/7/2021

Auckland Council’s submission on the Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development Discussion Document

2/8/2021

Memo: Update on Implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

 

6.         These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

at the top left of the page, select meeting/Te hui “Planning Committee” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

7.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary.  Planning Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings – 5 August 2021.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Monthly Housing Update – July 2021 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Auckland Council’s submission on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission's Consultation Document “He Tūāpapa ki te Ora, Infrastructure for a Better Future” (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Auckland Transport submission to Ministry of Transport discussion paper Public Transport Operation Model review (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Memo: Infrastructure acceleration fund application strategy (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Memo: Auckland Unitary Plan - Update on the preparation of an Integrated Residential Developments plan change (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

Auckland Council’s submission on the Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development Discussion Document (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

Memo: Update on Implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kalinda Iswar - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 



[1] Ministry for the Environment. 2020. Understanding and implementing intensification provisions for the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. (Page 37)